What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?

That's an ... "interesting" take on federalism.

The reversed Florida Supreme "Court" decision was one of the worst judicial-overlord abominations of all time. And this after being summarily swatted down 9-0... Unfortunately, on the second iteration Kennedy and O'Connor didn't have the guts to just call the Florida "Court" on it and sign on to the Rehnquist opinion.

Not sure how federal elections are an exclusively state matter, Allah. You'll have elaborate.

Long story short, the SCOFLA attempted to change the election laws after an election. The FEDERAL constitution gives the power to establish election laws to the state legislature.

SCOFLA attempted an unconstitutional power-grab. The USSC had little choice but to put the smack down.

Look, courts claim to be pre-eminent above all branches. If a state supreme court acts in such a lawless fashion, who better than to check them than a superior court?

Ace: right, but Kennedy and O'Connor couldn't bring themselves to dis their fellow robed masters so obviously, and made up the phony-baloney equal-protection rationale.

Ugh.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/22/venezuela.us.fuel.ap/index.html

Off topic- Fuck Citgo. Seriously, fuck them. I will never, ever tank up there again.

and fuck that Congressman Traitor for Che, too.

My favorite part of the decision is the one-use-only clause. "Hey don't be thinking anyone else can use this as precedent!"

The disposable, non-reusable SCOTUS judicial opinion: none of that messiness you get from other judicial review!

It's not your father's conservatism.

Not sure how federal elections are an exclusively state matter, Allah. You'll have elaborate.

I don't know the ins and outs of Bush v. Gore. I was commenting on Scalia's emphasis on the "importance" of the case. Why should that matter? The idea that only federal courts are qualified to hear really big cases is about as anti-federalist a position as you can take.

It was a state court interpreting constitutional issues (or, rather, obtusely missing them so they could just make up whatever law they wanted).

Last time I checked, the USSC, not the SCOFLA, is the ultimate arbiter of federal law and the constitution.

The Court exercised wisdom by forcing Florida stop counting votes. It was obvious that the Florida county officials were going to keep counting until Gore had more votes than Bush.

Every time they handled the ballots, Bush's lead dwindled.

They kept counting in King County, Washington, until Gregoire had more votes than Whatshisname. The courts should have issued an injunction before the Democrat's ballots magically appeared.

It's not your father's conservatism.

What does conservatism have to do with it? The SCOTUS was correctly overuling a terrible SCOFLA ruling.

Like I said, I don't remember the ins and outs of the case. I do remember that the dissenters argued, not unpersuasively, that the Court was stretching its interpretation of federal election law in order to create jurisdiction. "someone," who seems to remember the case better than I, calls the EP rationale baloney.

Here's an incisive article from the WSJ about the decision. The upshot of it is that both courts overreached. The decision's defenders seem to fall back on an ends-justifies-the-means logic, which I think is pretty embarrassing coming from our side. If the SCOFLA went overboard and effectively rewrote the state's election laws, the correct remedy from a federalist standpoint, it seems to me, is to let the Florida legislature deal with them by passing an amendment to the state constitution.

The reversed Florida Supreme "Court" decision was one of the worst judicial-overlord abominations of all time.

Agreed. That decision was a total abdication of judicial responsibility. If you read it against the backdrop of Florida election laws, the political agenda is obvious.

It was a state court interpreting constitutional issues (or, rather, obtusely missing them so they could just make up whatever law they wanted).

Again agreed, although I'm not real proud of the legal reasoning by which the SCOTUS reached their result. If anything, they were too deferential to the Florida SC. They should have hammered the Florida SC for ignoring Florida's own laws.

Scalia is absolutely right about SCOTUS taking a presidental election case. Without the high court being the final arbiter of such issues, Mass. will wind up having more votes for a Democrat nominee than residents of the state. There a distinction between Bush v. Gore and the abuse of the commerce clause by activist judges, for example.

You didn't hear it here Andy,

but 7-Eleven is renegotiating their deal with Citgo. 5300 retail locations in North America are moving to Shell.

Don't get why Citgo is evil here. Sounds good to me--unless buying gas from terrorist-supporting Saudis also knots your panties.

Citgo is wholly owned by of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.

It's a shot at Hugo Chavez.

take the dash out between it and go

During the Election 2000 unpleasantness, I would have loved to see the Florida state legislature say, "Hey SCOFLA, screw you, this ain't your jurisdiction." That would have started an interesting fight, perhaps. But no such luck. I get so sick and tired of the courts being deferred to as the All-Powerful Supreme Arbiters of Everything.

I believe that a lot of the present animosity in American politics goes back to the fight over the 2000 election. It really was an extremely damaging experience for our country. They caused more damage than they know. Since then, my educated leftist friends have just taken a flight from reality. Outlandish conspiracy theories have gone mainstream on the left.

Got to love the Democrats. They drag the election into the courts, then bitch when the courts rule against them.

There is a thread about this Scalio blurb on DU, that contends's Scalia's comment that several newspapers concluded Gore would not have won a comprehensive recount that he wanted any way.

The DU poster says "Bullshit! Gore would have easily won a statewide recount!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2269005&mesg_id=2269005

The problem is, the crux of Gore's lawsuit was to demand the recounting of a select few heavily-Democrat counties, which the Supreme Court ruled would be a de facto re-writing of law, not to mention violation of the 14th amendment. Hence they struck down the FLSCOTUS's ruling to allow selective recounting of ballots that the Gore team specified.

What is the justification for a one-use-only ruling?

Answer: NONE.

That's why it's not your father's conservatism, Matthew O.

If only Harriet Miers had been on the SCOTUS then!

A couple of points:

Bush was the first to involve the courts, when he sued to have the recount in Volusia County stopped. He was also the petitioner to the Supreme Court, so it's not clear how "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people."

States can make their own election laws. Florida can decide that there will be no popular vote, and that the electors will be chosen by the legislature. The US Supreme Court has nothing to say on the matter.

It has been established that Gore would have won a statewide recount if overvotes were counted. Overvotes are where the voter punched the hole next to the candidate's name and wrote his name in as well. There is no dispute as to who an overvote is for.

The Republicans behaved shamefully in an effort to steal the election. Harris set a deadline for a recount, despite being told by the counties that they couldn't complete the deadline in time. The Republicans then did everything they could to delay the recount. Republican Congressman Peter King organized a demonstration that included protestors pounding on the glass door to the room where election officials were trying to do their work. When Republican Congressional staffers in the protest crowd were asked their affiliation, they claimed to be "concerned citizens," because they knew the public would despise what they were doing to the process. So I assume you folks would have no problem with a Democratic mob invading a courthouse and disrupting the counting of ballots in a Presidential election?

Scalia stated in his opinion that the recount should be stopped because it would put a cloud over the results and make people question the legitimacy of the election. I don't rememmeber the "no clouds" amendment to the Constitution. Funny how strict construction is not so important when you've got an agenda.

Yes, the Republicans ended up with the Presidency, because they controlled the Secretary of State's office and the Supreme Court. Funny how so many of you true patriots are more concerned with gaming the system than actually legitimately winning elections.

Nonbinding appellate rulings are commonplace, kids. That said, it struck me as gratuitous for SCOTUS to stretch so hard to overturn a flatly lawless SCOFLA. Results had been certified and a slate was ready for presentation to the House. If SCOFLA ordered a second slate, the House is vested with the final authority to determine which will be recognized. Same end result, but no judicial acrobatics to straighten out the absurd lawlessness of SCOFLA.

And I agree, BTW, that Bush's win (despite the suppression of the military vote and the unfortunate early call on state results) is probably the point where the moonbats lost their grip. All those years of Clinton where they had to swallow (perhaps an unfortunate choice of words) policies they loathed and still vote for the "Triangulator." Years of defending the indefensible with nuttiness like the "one grope rule." All that stuff has to go somewhere and a Gore victory would have been where the moonbat base got rewarded. Losing so closely (even with operatives running lose with card punching machines and "discovering" boxes of Gore votes) just drove them completely crazy.

It has been established that Gore would have won a statewide recount if overvotes were counted. Overvotes are where the voter punched the hole next to the candidate's name and wrote his name in as well. There is no dispute as to who an overvote is for.

Sorry, Chris. Maybe Gore would have won the election if those votes had been counted, but it's the responsibility of the voter to make his or her wishes known within the constraints of the form given to vote.

I can't just submit a piece of notebook paper torn out of a spiral binder and write I WANT GORE and have it count as a legal vote. 99.9% of the people who voted did so the right way - an election should not hang on the inability of people to follow simple instructions.

Plus, many of those overvotes in Florida, because punch cards were used, had multiple holes, not handwritten names.

Harris set a deadline for a recount, despite being told by the counties that they couldn't complete the deadline in time.

Oh, and the deadline was set by Florida law - when the certified election results were due.

And to further back up Slublog, there had already been at least one statewide recount before the courtroom action started. Any reasonable candidate would have conceded after the first statewide recount. This whole business of framing the argument as "stopping the recount" is mistaken at best; more likely dishonest, in my opinion.

States can make their own election laws. Florida can decide that there will be no popular vote, and that the electors will be chosen by the legislature. The US Supreme Court has nothing to say on the matter.

Which of course contradicts the argument you're trying to make. Harris was simply trying to enforce the laws already on the books. The Florida Court was trying to rewrite laws on the fly. Are you in favor of unelected judges rewriting laws passed by duly elected state representatives?

My take on this is identical to VRWC's--the court shouldn't have to provide cover for gutless politicians--until he gets to this part:

Years of defending the indefensible...

This doesn't bother them any more than smoking my kids about Santa bothers me. The day lefties give two shits about honesty, consistency and personal responsibility is the day I'll muster a tiny bit of respect for them.

I think we can all agree that day's a little ways off.

and the deadline was set by Florida law

There are some deadlines imposed by federal law and the Constitution as well, including the "safe harbor" provision, negating a challenge from the US Congress.

basically the date for certification of the slate of electors is governed by federal statute. but you're basically right, how the electors are appointed is up to the state.

Ah, slightly loose shit on my part. Thanks.

I don't do this for a living, you know.

me either. we all learned an awful lot about this stuff that we never thought we would, didn't we?

More than I ever wanted to know. Doesn't stop Chris and co. from making stuff up, though, does it?

Bush was the first to involve the courts, when he sued to have the recount in Volusia County stopped. He was also the petitioner to the Supreme Court, so it's not clear how "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people."

Gore's attempt to hijack the election lost in every court except one -- the wacked-out liberal SCOFLA. Every other court told to stick it.

It has been established that Gore would have won a statewide recount if overvotes were counted.

Bush won the two machine recounts, plus the original maual recount. So what you're saying here is if they kept recounting the votes over and over again, eventually someone would find way to have a count where Gore would come out ahead. And then the Dems would say "stop the votes, we have a winner and it's us." Which is exactly what the Democratic strategy was.

And you call the Republicans shameless??

Republican Congressman Peter King organized a demonstration that included protestors pounding on the glass door to the room where election officials were trying to do their work.

Funny you didn't mention the Gore team's efforts to disallow the heavily pro-Bush military vote.

Oh, and one more thing.. Katherine Harris did not arbitrarily set the deadline. There are deadlines in both federal law and Florida state law that must be followed.

Nice attempt at spin, though. You hit all the moonbat left talking points pretty good.

Republican Congressman Peter King organized a demonstration that included protestors pounding on the glass door to the room where election officials were trying to do their work.

As I recall, that was because the election officials had tried to move their counting out of the public view.

I just had the most horrible, terrible, wonderful idea.

Let's say the howler monkeys are correct on this. Let us then toss out GWB and announce to the whole damned world that this is a ginormous "do-over." Let us specifically aim this message at the Islamofascists.

Islamofascists, being as predictable as they are, launch another volley of decapitation strikes against us. Gore finally gets his glorious "missed opportunity" where he eulogizes the 3,000 to 15,000 Americans who were just slaughtered and promises to do something.

Now he's in trouble. He does the typical Democrat thing by trying to avoid war at all costs, and tries to further his envirowacko agenda at the same time. He gets the U.N. to levy sanctions on a couple of Arab countries. The response? Oil price skyrockets. Economy goes into the ground, helped along by higher taxes.

People, left and right, begin getting pissed. Lack of military response, prohibitive gas prices, and inflation all come together in the perfect storm, and Gore's poll numbers start going subterranean.

Gore looks at his options in the Democrat playbook, and sees only one play left: military action with minimum American casualties. In other words, indiscriminate bombing.

Poll numbers fly high, then foreign press broadcasts video and pictures showing carnage and all of the peacenik groups give Gore's ratings a shiv in the ribs. Islamofascists hit back hard in propaganda and terrorism.

Gore either withdraws military in shame (typical) or escalates by bombing Islamic holy sites.

Americans vote against Democrats for the next 100 years.

"Republican Congressman Peter King"

Peter King is to Republicans as Albert Schweitzer was to axe murders.

...all of the peacenik groups give Gore's ratings a shiv in the ribs.

They'll just blame the military, won't they?

They'll just blame the military, won't they?

The military and the Republican president who comes afterward, if Vietnam was any indication.

It was just a weird rumination on my part. I don't do this for a living.

I think you meanies sent tubby and chris home crying.
"Cluebats hurt, mommy!!"
Yes, the left and their MSM mouthpieces have done everything they can since 2000 to make this Administration fail, to make this country ungovernable.
Kerry led the charge, taking a 'stand' on an issue, and then reversing said 'stand' when the favorable winds changed.
Just like the current crop of cowards who forget their pre-invasion 'stands'.
The MSM elected Clinton, and did everything it could to defeat Bush, especially in this last election.
They've been trying to keep him un-elected, for in their whacked-out tinfoil brains, he never was elected!

I'm sorry the Supreme Court stepped in. If Florida had started a state-wide recount and hadn't finished by the deadline (which was pretty much inevitable), then the state legislature had jurisdiction to decide. And they were solidly Republican. We wouldn't have had to endure all this "selected not elected" bullshit.

On the other hand, I understand why the USSC did what they did. The Florida Supreme Court shouldn't have overriden state law -- but they did -- or Kathryn Harris -- but they did -- and the more those ballots were handled, the less they had meaning.

I think you meanies sent tubby and chris home crying.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be back, writing the same thing they wrote a few hours ago, expecting us to fall to our knees in respect and awe at the arguments they make.

And we'll mock them and they'll whine about how we don't want to face the real issues.

And if we're lucky, it will degenerate into a flame war and we get to call each other names that include dirty cussin'.

I love this comments section.

Well said, Slu.
Just keep wishing them a 'Merry Fitzmas'!!
(That should bring 'em back...)

Just to strengthen slublog's point on the overvotes, the entire argument for counting the overvotes is a disingenous red herring. A ballot punched or marked for more than one candidate is deemed invalid and not counted by law, so counting the overvotes would have been illegal.

But we could have changed the overvote law after the fact! WTF is wrong with you people--it's the end, not the means for crying out loud.

If the Democrats would bomb Islamic holy sites, I'd vote for the for 100 years!

The day lefties give two shits about honesty, consistency and personal responsibility is the day I'll muster a tiny bit of respect for them.

Fair enough, but to protect the Prevaricator in Chief they had to sell out the very things they had already sold their souls to get. (As in the example of the One Grope Rule.) That had to hurt.

I believe that a lot of the present animosity in American politics goes back to the fight over the 2000 election.

That's because Al Gore loves power more than he does his country.

The fucker conceded, then cried DO-OVER!

Oh, geez, I didn't know it was so close. Maybe I can cherry pick a few counties and cheat out a win.

Richard Nixon when faced with an obviously stolen election decided to let it go for the good of the county. Richard Nixon was more of a patriot than Al Gore and any of his defenders.

I think you meanies sent tubby and chris home crying.

They'll be back. And Chris is a regular Wizbang commenter, I believe. Actually, I kind of admire his willingness hang out on conservative blogs where his Democrat/Michael Moore talking points place him in a tiny minority. And yet he manages to remain civil (most of the time) even though everyone else is throwing stuff at him.

No one addresses the real oddity of the SCOTUS decision of the topic.

How can it only be good for ONE USE???

And you support this decision in the name of CONSERVATISM?

C'mon. Face up to it.

And Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Anybody familiar with the concept of unreported decisions? Anybody?

*crickets*

I find it fascinating to see how some people, Chris for one, can first draw a conclusion e.g. Gore really won the 2000 election, and then fashion the data to fit the conclusion. Must be a liberal thing.

No one addresses the real oddity of the SCOTUS decision of the topic.

How can it only be good for ONE USE???

Look at the comment with this signature and date/time stamp:
Posted by VRWC Agent at November 23, 2005 08:59 AM

The "oddity" of your question was addressed there.

So someone else sees GORE s the little spoiled brat he truly is gore the egotistical big mouth with enough hot air to fill 2000 of those colorful balloons i mean he should never be allowed to run for any public office again. If AL GORE wants to stop GLOBAL WARMING he can start by keeping his big fat piehole shut it cut down on all that HOT AIR