"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush
but
I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of
the
Justices is irrelevant.

Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines.
Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that.

Apparently you have not read Gore vs. Harris, which became Bush vs. Gore, or
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris.

Down party lines???? More Democrat propaganda. The fact is it was
BI-PARTISAN decision between the courts. The Florida Supreme Court has 6
Democrats, 0 Republicans, and 1 Independant. The SCotUS has 5 Republicans
and 4 Democrats. Judges Sauls is a Democrat.

Two of the questions in Bush vs. Gore was the counting standards and the
safe harbor date as the deadline.

One the first question, the counting standards.

Gore vs. Harris (I) Judge Sauls questioned the change of the counting
standards in the first recount. He quoted GORE'S own Florida Campaign Chair,
Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth. That is 1 Democrat.

Gore vs. Harris (II) 3 members of the Florida Supreme Court found problems
with the lack of a counting standard. That is 2 more Democrats and 1
Independent.

Bush vs. Gore 7 members of the Supreme Court of the United States found
problems with the "arbitrary" counting standards that were being used. That
is 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

The totals on this point, 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Independent, vs. 6
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS.

On safe harbor deadline of 12/12/2000. In Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris, the DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court ruled TWICE, include
12/11/2000, that the 12th was the FINAL DEADLINE.

The totals on this, is 6 DEMOCRATS, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent vs. 4
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS.

Your "down party lines" are from the DEMOCRATS who said that identically
marked ballots DO NOT MEAN the same thing, and that the Constitutional
requirement that only a state legislature can enact election code does not
apply (i.e. a state legislature does not have the right to take advantage of
the safe harbor provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887).

****
From Gore vs.. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls (Democrat) writing....


"The Palm Beach County board did not abuse its discretion in its review and
recounting process."

"Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit court in
and for Palm Beach County."

"Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of this
process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such process and
standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards, perhaps contrary to
Title III, Section (5) of the United States code."

"Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in its
review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard utilized
was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under another standard
would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier situation within one
county, as well as with respect to other counties."

"The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida
enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter dated
November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of the Palm
each County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows: "A two-tier
system would have the effect of treating voters differently, depending upon
what county they voted in."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/elec...s_opinion.html

The dissent of the FSC, in Gore vs. Harris, also found an equal protection
problem.

Justice Wells writing his dissent said "I must regrettably conclude that the
majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make
provision for....(9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards."

and

"Harding with Shaw concurring. "...as I have serious concerns that
Appellant's interpretation of 102.168 would violate other votes' rights to
due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States."

Notice what Justice Wells said, "(9) the effect of the differing
intra-county standards."

Gore vs. Harris, 12/8/2000 See:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

Note that none of these judges or the Fla. Attny. General are Republicans.
The count here is 4 Democrats and 1 Independent.

From Bush vs. Gore.

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified
at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board
applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec.
3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county
changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach
County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded
counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a
vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to
the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to
have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not
a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

and

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.
See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the
safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer's proposed
remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in
violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an
"appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)."

Link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Justice Souter wrote that the change in counting standards was "arbitrary".

".....But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of
disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have
been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of
ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical
physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g.,
Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to
imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification
manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards
applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000)
(soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining
voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can
conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing
treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences
appear wholly arbitrary."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

Justice Beyer also wrote: "The majority's third concern does implicate
principles of fundamental fairness. The majority concludes that the Equal
Protection Clause requires that a manual recount be governed not only by the
uniform general standard of the "clear intent of the voter," but also by
uniform subsidiary standards (for example, a uniform determination whether
indented, but not perforated, "undervotes" should count). The opinion points
out that the Florida Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of Broward County's
undercounted "legal votes" even though those votes included ballots that
were not perforated but simply "dimpled," while newly recounted ballots from
other counties will likely include only votes determined to be "legal" on
the basis of a stricter standard. In light of our previous remand, the
Florida Supreme Court may have been reluctant to adopt a more specific
standard than that provided for by the legislature for fear of exceeding its
authority under Article II. However, since the use of different standards
could favor one or the other of the candidates, since time was, and is, too
short to permit the lower courts to iron out significant differences through
ordinary judicial review, and since the relevant distinction was embodied in
the order of the State's highest court, I agree that, in these very special
circumstances, basic principles of fairness may well have counseled the
adoption of a uniform standard to address the problem. In light of the
majority's disposition, I need not decide whether, or the extent to which,
as a remedial matter, the Constitution would place limits upon the content
of the uniform standard."


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html

From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000,
all seven members agreed that the safe harbor date was the deadline. (6
DEMOCRATS, 1 Independent)

"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only
if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will
compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1)
by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." (reference to footnote 55)

"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."

The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf






As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

Indeed. My mistake.


And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not
because of the political affiliations of the Justices.

In your warped view. Others will continue to carry a different view.

Go read the case
sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing
whatever
to do with politics.

Others will continue to carry a different view.