It doesn't prove this. That's your assertion. Sorry, but you haven't
convinced me. Keep talking though, you're making yourself look
more and more foolish.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Boring and not relevant.

Boing, yes, but it does prove that the SCotUS did not appoint Bush to the
White House. For anyone to say that the Supreme Court gave Bush the win
does
not understand the ramifications of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, and
how
it would work with the make up of Congess on 1/6/2001.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
.. .
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Are you just stupid or what. I never claimed that anything would
prove Gore won or didn't win. The Supremes never let it go far
enough to find out.

You don't like Gore. I don't like Bush. So, what's your point?

The point the order of the FSC, which overturned by the SCotUS, would
NOT
have proven anything. It was standardless, partial recount of disputed
ballots (60k of 180k) which violated 3 U.S.C. section 5, thus would
have
been thrown out by the US House. To say that the SC gave Bush the
election
is wrong. If you going to make that kind of argument, then it was the
Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court because they gave Bush the
state
certification which the Democrats could NEVER get enough votes to
override.