Supreme Court hearing

[Double Trouble]

I just finished listening to the audio of the whole session today, and I must say, I am very impressed with the overall preparedness and savy of all the justices and the lawyers. I certainly disagree with some of the arguments and points, but I was amazed by how the lawyers composed themselves when being barraged with questions and interrupted all the time. It's also clear to me that all the justices did their homework on this one, citing a lot of case history.

The other thing that really struck me is how well throught-through the questions tended to be, on all sides.

Maybe next time I'm in DC I'll catch a Supreme Court hearing

Now I'm just really curious as to what the verdict will be..... and will it come in tonight?

 

[konichiwa]

Yeah I try to listen to as many supreme court cases as I can, I find them incredibly intriguing. I'm always amazed at how well the lawyers keep their cool in front of 9 of the most important and influential people in the United States grilling them on every little word they say.

I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks...

 

[Double Trouble]

Though I completely disagree with the arguments made by the Gore team (in this case, Boies), they were brought forward very well. I felt bad for Boies a couple of times when it seemed some of the justices were sort of hammering him based on their perception that the FSC kind of thumbed their noses at the US Supremes. Boies was in a position of having to defend the FSC's actions, which at times was very difficult. I thought he did an excellent job.

 

[JellyBaby]

I heard it typically takes them 24 hours to decide on important matters. I'd say this is a fairly important one.

Though I didn't listen to all of it, I will say one of the Bush lawyers was on his tip-toes trying to answer one of the Supreme's questions, "How would you define an objective standard by which to count the votes by hand?". The Bush lawyer wasn't prepared to answer that one. Overall pretty impressive, I agree.

 

[IronMike]

We understand that they are gratified that you recognize their value.

Indeed we understand that they might follow your lead and use some of your eloquent words in their judicial opinion . . ."And the mighty foot of the US Supreme Court hath cometh down and layeth the smacketh down and beat some sense into the 4 crooked FSC hacks......."

 

[Double Trouble]

Yeah, actually, I heard Justice O'Conner occasionally browses these forums when trying to figure out why her overclocked Duron-based system keeps freezing up during Duke Nuke'm games.

And yes, I still believe their foot will indeed come down and layeth the smacketh down. Some of their questions showed very clearly that they were very displeased by the FSC's actions. They just don't want to let it get in the way of their objectivity.

 

[WyattBurp]

I am very confused about this whole issue.

I was under the impression that the election had already been certified and that in order to OVERTURN a certified election you had to prove fraud and that enough votes had been corrupted by such subversion to change the outcome of the election. That was the ruling by circuit judge Sauls.

However, the Florida Supreme Court said that Sauls used the wrong standard. I am confused about this single issue. Because if this is the wrong situation to apply that standard on, then WHEN WOULD ONE EVER APPLY that standard? Why even bother having that standard?

 

[Russ]

WyattBurp,

You are not confused. The Mini Supremes are.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Moonbeam]

Assuming that a dicision hasn't been handed down, since I haven't been listening, I'd guess that the court will seek a means to give Bush the election while appearing to count the votes. They'll say count um as the voters were instructed to cast them. That will fool a few people into thinking they were impartial. If they choose the pres directly, it will be another Dred Scott decision.

 

[Shuxclams]

What has been missed in all this is the fact that should Bush win his case on the basis of equal treatment and that each county should have the same standard would be wholly against the premise of small goverment and would set a precedent nationwide of a federal guideline in county and state affairs. I for one do not like the Federal goverment, judicial, legislative and executive setting these types of precidents, and especially in a clearly states rights case.



SHUX

 

[ride525]

I've seen a lot of complaining that the manual ballot checks aren't fair because each county might have different standards.

Where were you when the votes were first counted? Counties have MUCH DIFFERENT methods of counting the votes. Some use optical scanners, some use punch cards, etc.

Is it fair for the counties to use different COMPLETELY DIFFERENT methods for tabulating the votes? If so, then what's the fuss about different methods of manual recounts in each county?

 

[Shuxclams]

Good point ride, as I was saying, if bush wins then all counties in all states will have to use the same tabulation and manual counting standard, which will make it easier to cheat on larger scales.


SHUX

 

[Format C:]

<< Is it fair for the counties to use different COMPLETELY DIFFERENT methods for tabulating the votes? >>

NO! Absolutely not. All counties should tabulate their ballots using the optical scanner. If it can't read the punch cards then oh well, at least we'd be &quot;fair&quot; about it. Right?

<< They'll say count um as the voters were instructed to cast them. >>

What a novel idea. That might have some potential and certainly deserves further analysis. Wow, to think that if you've received instructions to punch completely thru the ballot, take it out, check it and remove any partially attached chads/chips in order to insure that your vote is legal and valid, that that might could actually mean something. Why hasn't someone thought of this before?

 

[Double Trouble]

ride: <<what's the fuss about different methods of manual recounts in each county?>>

Remember that in this case we're talking about counties with the exact same method of voting (punch cards), but yet the votes are counted differently because -- as the justices pointed out, each counter table can have it's own standard.... In other words, there is no standard, and if there is no standard, then clearly there is a problem under the equal protection clause.

Moonbeam, nice try bud, but in this case, the usual tactic of smearing the messenger of the truth will not work. Poll after poll has shown that the Anerican people trust the US Supremes more than any other institution, and they believe in it's integrity.

 

[ride525]

<< In other words, there is no standard, and if there is no standard, then clearly there is a problem under the equal protection clause. >>



Let me make my point once again.....

The different counties use different methods of tabulating ballots. Some methods have many more undervotes, or ballots that the machines can't read a vote for President. Shall we throw the whole state of Florida out because there is a similar problem under the equal protection clause?

 

[Tripleshot]

Shall we throw the whole state of Florida out because there is a similar problem under the equal protection clause?

In a word--------Yes!

 

[Futuramatic]

Justice O'Connor summed up this whole fiasco in one question to Boies (paraphrased), &quot;Why isn't a legal vote one where the voter followed instructions?&quot; FYI: Following the instructions INCLUDES the voter manually inspecting the ballot subsequent to voting.

ride-

So what? Different counties use different types of ballots. However, for each type of ballot, there should be ONE way to manually count them. Why should there be a problem with this?

I can tell you why there SHOULD NOT be different standards. Manual recounts are based on judgment. This judgement can be adversely affected by political affiliations (as seen in Broward). If you are given a single, clear, defining standard, then there is less chance of this happening.

3shot-

Throw out the whole state? Man, it is no longer about who won anymore for you is it? You just want Gore in there, regardless of the cost.

 

[Futuramatic]

konichiwa-

I was under the impression that these 2 election cases were the FIRST to be recorded in this manner....

 

[Thorn]

<< Throw out the whole state? Man, it is no longer about who won anymore for you is it? You just want Gore in there, regardless of the cost. >>


You're just now seeing this? The Fla Legislature will choose their electors and there's nothing to be done about it after that. Hell, they can choose any set of electors they want irregardless of an election result. They could pick the 25 electors that had the highest SAT scores, it makes no difference. That's the Fla state law.

I'm just having fun watching them pull the old &quot;race card&quot; out into play again.

To quote the &quot;esteemed&quot; Reveeerreend Jesay Jackssson:


<< &quot;They had police officers asking black voters if they were ever convicted of a felony... this shows extreme prejuduce and cannot be tolerated.&quot; >>


Well... umm, maybe because the crime rate is 8 times higher in that county? Duh. Everyone voting in those presincts got asked that question, including a close friend of mine of Scotch-Irish descent (really pale kid with reddish blonde hair).

 

[Moonbeam]

Tagej, read Justice Stevens dissent.