ken smith

Not from what I'm reading -- and I'm re-reading the dissenting
opinions as I write this.


God knows what mischief can accrue from an electronic voting
system with NO paper trail.

This is my objection. I say, let the ballots be counted, and let the
winner be the winner! I could find no basis for 'pulling the plug' on
what was an otherwise lawful contest to a tentative election result.
If there are 9,000 ballots left uncounted, and the tally you have has
a 167-vote margin, you should count the damn ballots!

I was in Aus. You got live feed, and everyone actually speaks
the language. Even worse.

ken smith

Oh, they are quite well-established -- except, perhaps, in the eyes
of Bill Ass Preston and his colleague, Theodore A. Kaldis.

BCCI. "Kenny Boy" Lay. Arbusto. Harken Energy. Land-rustlin'.
Insider trading. The boy's about as clean as Teddi's room.

That sounds more like your M.O.: Everything Clinton did was slimy,
but Bush walks on water. I say that Bush is Clinton without a ***ual
addiction, but they're both compulsive liars.


No, thank the "Gang of Five" -- who appointed Shrub pResident.


You mean, like Shrub's disastrous mismanagement of homeland
security that gave us 9/11?


So has Shrub. But that's right -- you only criticize those people you disagree with.


Uh, Clinton did. Are you going to praise him, Ted?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm in America, and very aware of just how bad US politics is.


Carter wasn't an effective manager. Shrub seems no better.

ken smith

Again, you don't have a ****in' clue. Try Sec. 102.168(3)(c), Fla.
Stat. Ann., as cited in Gore v. Harris. The statutory remedy was a
trifle vague, but interpreting the law is what courts do.

Read the SCOTUS decision. They objected to the manner in which
the ballots were being counted -- NOT to the count itself, which was permitted via statute.

You don't know how those things work. Election judges from both
sides examine the ballot, and the 'intent of the voter' is determined by
a court in the case of the disputed ballots.

No, they stepped in on the grounds that the recount was allegedly
violating the Equal Protection Clause. Rehnquist had to pull one out
of his ass for that, 'cuz he's never used it before....

Given what was at stake, I am convinced otherwise. Remember the
mad rush of Republicans in Dade?

I submit that it is the result of human nature, as evidenced by the
systematic and discriminatory removal of blacks from the voting
rolls by Fraulein Harris and her thugs. Bad things happen on both
sides; unlike you, Republicans like me are candid enough to admit
it and try to improve it.


Which became the result by default, because the count that Gore
had a right to was stopped.

Again, see Sec. 102.168(3)(c), Fla. Stat. Ann., as cited in Gore v.
Harris. With some 9,000+ ballots in valid question, it was certainly material.


You probably recall wrongly.

Depends. I don't know what a Gore administration would have looked
like, but I can't say I'm overly enamored with the Bush administration and
the 2,000,000+ jobs he's lost.


That's your problem. You can never admit when you're wrong.


Blah, blah, blah ... What SCOTUS did was violate every tenet of
jurisprudence they have ever espoused to hand the election over to
their boy. Payback, Chicago-style.


No, it wasn't. The EP clause was invoked, you idiot!

He needed 9/11. He wanted 9/11. He probably let 9/11 happen,
because without it, he'd be a cooked goose.

Fighting for your rights is now an embarrassment and indictment of your character?!?!?

I don't know *who* the winner would have been, had the election
been conducted in accordance with Florida law. And we will never
know. All we do know is that Shrub was appointed by default, and
that we may need Cuba to send in election observers....


As I have said, you can achieve 100% assurance as to who will win a
close election dispute in the courts by knowing which party put the judge
in a position to decide. True in CO, FL, NJ, and at SCOTUS.

It's an embarrassment to our judicial system.

I wasn't aware that the issue had ever been brought up in a court.
I'm fighting a jurisdictional battle right now. And if our courts are as
corrupt as you say Florida's is, then is it that surprising that I would
expect to lose on that point? I want the question to go to a jury --
judges are obviously interested in protecting their sinecures.

That's because your ubiquitous gut is in the way.


You don't just celebrate them, you do your best to compound them.

God forbid that we should ever stand up for our rights, eh, Herr Kaldis?

They didn't change Florida law -- they merely interpreted it.


But not close enough for the law. "Federal question" is defined, and it
is most certainly not "whether it affects the federal government."

No, but you have so blatantly demonstrated your abject ignorance in
the past that I doubt seriously that you can master all but the rudiments
of legal theory.

[replaced what Teddi can't deal with]

Subject: Re: What do Americans know? Not very much
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:20:38 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.gossip.celebrities,alt.polit ics.usa.misc,aus.politics

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:


How so? Florida law provided for the count that was taking place
when SCOTUS ordered the stay. Gore was within ~80 votes and
gaining, IIRC. SCOTUS stepped in because their man was in grave danger of losing.

And you can be absolutely assured that the Bush camp would have
done the *exact* same thing, had their roles been reversed. Human
nature is pretty constant.


In point of fact, there wasn't. The final tally was interrupted by SCOTUS
-- and even they didn't say that, as a matter of law, it couldn't continue.


They are by definition preliminary, if a candidate had the right to the
third official recount -- the one SCOTUS stopped. SCOTUS did not
say that that count couldn't continue; it was, however, a fait accompli.


Because I haven't been. SCOTUS never said that the count could
not continue, or that the final count would not have been valid; as a
practical matter, they had no choice but to stop, because SCOTUS
changed the rules so radically that they couldn't *do* the counting.


Gore invoked his right to have a final formal recount. You can't admit
that, though, because you would have to admit that SCOTUS stopped it
for political reasons. The end result is that Bush's [S]election is tainted
-- a profound embarrassment and indictment of our system.

Better to have let the process take its course, and let the winner be
declared -- irrespective of who it was.


The same can be said of SCOTUS.

I also have evidence to back up *my* claim.

You seem to have no problem with it when the Colorado Supreme
Court does it -- because you hate me, and celebrate my injuries.

Florida law is *defined* by the Florida Supreme Court.


That's not a "federal question," as the law defines it. Of course,
you wouldn't know that.


O'Connor is fiercely partisan, but like most Goldwater 'Pubs,
she does have a libertarian streak. Only the Religious Reich is
opposed to permitting citizens the freedom to engage in *** in
the privacy of their own home -- because they are all ******s at heart.

And you don't find it the least bit strange that a cocaine-dealing
convicted felon daughter of a Democratic activist, barrister, and
judge got a license to practice law, whilst a Republican candidate
for the state House was denied a license *two days* after his bid
for election was foiled?

The evidence of corruption in SCOTUS *is* Bush v. Gore -- a
case which cannot be used as precedent.

How can they ignore ******** Florida law when they get to say what
the law is?


SCOTUS committed a judicial coup.


Then, why didn't they write a decision with precedential value?
I have no problem with expanding equal protection, as long as I
can take the same advantage as Dubya. But the "Gang of Five"
had to reject lifetimes of their own jurisprudence to ensure that
they got their man into office.

I see. Anyone who fights for his rights and loses is a sore loser?
I suppose he can be -- if he should have won but for corruption in
the nation's courts. Like Al Gore.