"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

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.

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.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html