Jump to content

Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

Recommended Posts

Section 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors


If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the

day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final

determination of any controversy or contest concerning the

appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by

judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination

shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for

the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to

such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior

to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and

shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in

the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the

ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



Sure I can explain the decision. Here goes.....


Well, skipping the year of constitutional law, and all constitutional history, here goes:


The Supremes got a petition saying that the Flordia Supreme Court was WRONG to order a recount, and that the State Supreme Court was wrong to worry about why or how so many votes were thrown out with the chad issues. The Federal Supremes said "we'll hear it, there might be a 14th Amendment issue, but we'll issue a stay and there will be no recount while we think about it".


Then the deadline for the Florida Secty of State to receive certifications of the numbers from the counties approaches, and she needs to report to the Federal election folks in Congress (remember the electoral system) and the Supremes say "Oh, well, we don't think that Florida is capable of doing a recount anyway, so let's not have a recount, lets just go with the first vote (which by the way the Florida Supreme Court found HAD to be recounted under Florida law)."


And that, as they say, was that.


Now, how did the result come about as a contrived deal? By staying the reoount issue the Supreme's insured (1) there would not be enough time to recount before the county clerks and the State Secty of State hit their deadline, and (2) thus insuring that the initial numbers which the Florida Supreme Court had already ruled were flawed, became final.


Here are some comments by Legal Scholars and others on the decision:


"The Justices' assumption of governmental authority reached a new dimension on December 12, 2000, when by a 5-4 margin, the Court affirmed its decision of three days earlier to halt Florida's recount of votes for the presidential election, effectively deciding the contest in favor of Republican candidate George W. Bush." Jesse Choper.


"Few Supreme Court decisions provoke the immediate and intensely negative verdict that law professors passed on Bush v. Gore. (1) It usually takes some time for scholars to digest the opinions, reflect on the majority's reasoning, and render considered judgments. Not so in this case. Within a few days of the 5-4 ruling that halted the recounting of votes for presidential electors in Florida, the decision drew withering criticism from scholars across the ideological spectrum." Michael Wells


There are many sources to explore for explanations, for example: http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=bush_v_gore&OFFID=se1 is one.


Of course, if you want to read the actual case, its at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html


But the best evidence of the utter intellectual bankruptcy of what the Federal Supreme Court did is found in the language from the Supreme's themselves. REmember, here are 5 people deciding a national election where:


1) the total count difference on the initial count was about 1700 votes, and those 1700 votes were the tail wagging the entire nation's election

2) The Florida Supreme Court (which should have deference in state matters -- a constitutional maxim from the early days of the republic) said a recount was required under state law

3) the Fed Supremes stopped the recount until the deadline approached

4) then the Fed Supremes said, tongue firmly in cheek:


[actual language of the opinion follows:]


" Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. 101.015 (2000).


"The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the States electors to participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3 U.S.C. 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Courts order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. "


So, what did the Federal Supreme's say in English? They said that the Florida Supreme court correctly said that Florida State Law REQUIRED a recount. But the Federal Supremes didn't think that the folks in Florida WERE CAPABLE OF DOING IT, so they reversed the Florida Supreme Court and said "no recount". Remember the essence of the ruling is found in the sentence: "...it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work." Too much "work" for the poor Florida Supreme Court and Florida County Election Commissioners.


Of course, that's why the liberal judges in the 9th Circuit took such glea in issuing their initial order to stop the California recall vote -- I mean, tell me anytime when the reasoning of Bush v. Gore couldn't be used to stop an election or a recount?


Imagine what would happen if the Supremes took a look at County counting all accross the country -- we could have a new rule where the Supremes always get to pick the president.


Republicans stand for the proposition that government acts best that (1) acts least, and (2) acts at the lowest level. Bushwackers continually want to make all the decisions at their level. Of course, "unfunded mandates" s a subject for a different class.


That's why lawyers laugh at the Bush v. Gore decision. It is the worst legal writing ever -- including the poor attempts of most 1st year law students. It was what we call a "results oriented decision". That is, once the supreme's stopped the recount, they only had to wait a few days before the recount became impossible due to the requirement that the state report results to the feds.


And finally, remember, it was BUSH who sued in the Federal Supreme Court. that's why the case is called "Bush v. Gore". Do you really think that he didn't know what the outcome was going to be when he did it?


So, we reach the end. The opinion is a joke. No lawyer believes for a minute that there was a case which, had the names been Smith v. Jones contesting an election for county clerk in any county in the country, under the same facts, the US Supremes would have ever agreed to hear the case.


So now, we are again at the point where you are going to tell me which part of the constitution contains the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written". Of course, you can't, because the Supremes never quoted any language, nor referred to any language.


Link to post
Share on other sites



before you get all crazy about my ignoring your reference to Sec 5, please note:


1) it had no part in the Supreme's decision. The Federal Supremes said their decision was solely based on: " With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. "


2) the part you quoted was the excuse I speak of in my reply. The Florida Secty of State is bound by the 6 day rule. The Federal Supremes merely waited 'til it was too late and then sent it back for action "consistent with this opinion" which did not allow any reconsideratoin by Florida Supreme Court 'cause the 6 days were upon them.

(This message has been edited by denver4und@aol.com)(This message has been edited by denver4und@aol.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are about 50 things I want to say in this forum today in response to posts over the past few days, but I don't have time to write any of them.


But I can't let a statement go by that there are "two sides" to the 9/11 "story." There are not two sides to that story. There can be no possible justification for what was done on that day. And as for a "message," I have heard different theories about what the "message" was and who was sending it, but I don't think anyone who claimed responsibility for the attacks ever said "Here is why we did it." So there really was no message, and even if there was, obviously this was not an acceptable way of sending it.


As I read what I have written, I realize that it is not "strong" enough. But I really don't think I am able to put into words the depth of my feeling about 9/11.


On the subject of G.W. Bush, my feelings are pretty similar to those of OGE. From the time the administration first starting discussing Iraq to when the war started, they gave out about five different justifications for what they were planning. When one didn't seem to be working with the public, they brought out a different one. Their public statements, and those of the president himself, were contradictory over the many months leading to the war. I am glad Saddam Hussein is gone, but I was really skeptical as to whether it was going to be worth the number of lives lost. The number of people we lost in actual combat was relatively small (which is no comfort to their families), but it seems like we are now losing about 5 to 10 people a week. When does it end?


Someone mentioned that the number of people being lost is far fewer than in Vietnam. I don't think that is the point. I do think that because of Vietnam, the tolerance of the American people for being lied to in justification of a war was greatly reduced, and that is one reason a lot of people are questioning what is going on now. Another thing that was greatly reduced because of Vietnam was the tolerance of the American people for large numbers of our people dying in a distant war against a nation that has not directly attacked us. So maybe the relevant number before we say "enough is enough" is not in the tens of thousands as it was in Vietnam. Maybe it is only in the hundreds now, and that's about where we are.


Finally, Rooster said this:


Third, we conquered a very evil Iraqi administration that killed tens of thousand and tortured hundreds of thousands more. Even if no WMD is ever found, the victory was worth the cost. If we have a collective moral conscience, we should of felt compelled to fight this battle just as our forefathers felt compelled to fight Hitler.


Your historical reference to World War II is not accurate. This country did not enter the war when Hitler proved to be an evil ruler of his own people, or when he took over most of Europe, or when it appeared that he was about to conquer Great Britain. We sent the British some equipment and offered some technical support, but we did not become actively involved in the war until more than 2 years after it started, and about a year and a half after Germany overran most of Europe. And even then, we only got involved when Japan attacked us, followed a few days later by Germany's declaration of war against us. So we did not get involved in WW2 as a matter of "moral conscience" or to help those in need. I wish it were otherwise. The fact is that we only responded when we ourselves were attacked. So as an analogy to what we did in Iraq, especially with regard to the argument that the war in Iraq was a response to human suffering, WW2 does not fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Can you honestly be serious about what your saying? You're either saying those things as a joke or you are incredibly ignorant. There may be two sides to most stories but not that one. The arguments made by those who would like to blame the American government for what happened are ridiculous. That terrible day was simply a desperate act of cowardice which was not in any way the fault of George W. Bush or for god's sake the American people.


You really should look into not posting such horribly stupid and offensive things on forums like this.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

Heh, heh, I stumbled across this dinosaur and had to chuckle at the deafening silence that it suffered for about the last 4 years. I wonder how many of us would like to be able to turn back the clock a few years, say to September 2000? Or did we decide that we ARE happy with him and I just didn't notice? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a thread resurrection there, packsaddle. :p


Yah, yah, OK. I admit it.


I voted for the man in 2000.


I apologize to everyone for doin' it. It's hard to avoid the unpleasant conclusion that I helped elect probably the worst executive in da history of the Republic. I voted for fiscal responsibility. I got borrow-and-spend for "earmarks". I voted for honor and respect for our armed services. I got ignorant micromanaging of the military and every other federal department, abuse of our military and national guard, and war-without-sacrifice. I voted for "no nation building". I got da biggest boondoggle of attempted nation-building ever. I voted for judicial restraint, and got legal incompetence. And on and on....


I apologize. I will at least offer that I said personally and professionally that Bush v. Gore was one of the most poorly reasoned decisions I'd seen the court make in many a year. Ain't that always da problem with judicial activism, whether it's Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore? It employs misplaced paternalism to cut short a debate and a process that needs to happen in public across the several states, as we try to find a consensus as a people.




Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept your apology. ;)


I believe that in 100 years, Gore will be revered as a statesman for his unwavering drive to educate the public about climate change. Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as the worst president in modern times.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess because of what I do, I'm constantly comparing what people thought in the past with what actually happened and what they're saying today. In science it's fun but as they say in the commercials, "...wait, there's more..."

Anyone who takes the time in the library to go through some 20-40 year old Popular Science magazines will likely fall on the floor in laughter. Same for almost anything that makes a prediction. We very rarely get it right...or another way of putting it is that nature usually makes liars out of us (one of the reasons I'm wary of the whole global climate change thing). Same for politics. So this old thread was ripe for some humorous retrospection.


I didn't vote for the guy but I didn't really dislike him back in 2000. I actually liked some of the things he was saying in the campaign. And then the reality of the thing hit. The thing that disappointed me the earliest was that I really hoped that W would provide the unifying influence that he said he would. That ended pretty quickly. And then - wow, where do I begin? But the things that really bother me are the fact that W is more than merely the worst president of all time, he is the representation of the worst collective decision the American people have ever made, and at many levels. And I'm not certain that we've learned anything that would prevent a similar blunder in the future. Another thing that bothers me is the very real possibility that the damage that has been done is permanent and unrecoverable. Yes, I know this is already true for many thousands of families who've been destroyed as a result of his decisions. But beyond that I worry that he has done damage to this country from which we may never recover. Think of it: the economy (debt), energy, education, environment, health care, foreign policy...it goes on and on.

To use a different metaphor, I worry that having driven the vehicle over the cliff, it doesn't much matter who we put behind the wheel from now on - the landing is pretty much going to be the same. That, I suppose, qualifies me as a glass-half-empty guy so I apologize for that. I just can't shake it, or my gallows humor outlook. But looking back on this thread still brings a smile. I hope my dark prognostication is, in retrospect, as laughable as some of those old Popular Science magazines. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, double digit inflation, high unemployment, double digit mortgage rates, "oil crisis", Iranian hostages, do-nothing presidency, I'd have to say that James Earl Carter will be remembered as the worst president in modern times. BUT, the media (and historians) will fall all over themselves because Carter was for a while the best ex-President for his work with habitat for Humanity. But then he called on the UN to post observers HERE!!!! The way he has ripped President Bush is appauling, he stay in Plains.


President Bush may not be the best in history, how could someone compare to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Cleveland, that's right Cleveland - he used his veto pen over 500 times, that's chutzpah!


Beavah, no need to aplogize, would you rather have had Gore with the football? A long standing joke: How do you tell Gore from the Secret Service agents? He's the one NOT MOVING!


Gore is a disgrace! A liar and a hipocrit. Not to mention his former boss, also a liar, disgrace, hipocrit, impreached President, held in contempt of court and disbarred.


So Beavah, don't appologize, you voted for the guy who did what he said he would do. He's going after terrorists, he warned Saddam and enforced UN resolution 1441 like he said he would.



I voted for W both times.(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)


Packsaddle, I don't want to argue friend, but an examination of the Leading Economic Indicator at the Conference Board will show that the economy is actually doing pretty well. I know, i know, gas and milk are high, but, when gasoline is factored for inflation over time, it has pretty much done OK. I didn't thoroghly examine your post, byt c'mon, W isn't that bad, he graduated from Harvard and Yale, I'll concede that he isn't the best public speaker (an essential skill for his job) but he's better than either Kerry or Gore.

(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, Gonz, I hear yeh. I'm a long time conservative type, but not a neoCon. Da democrats are and have been awful about all kinds o' things.


But I really believe that what distinguishes the good guys from the bad is honesty and honor. So I think we've gotta be honest and honorable about assessin' the current administration. Everybody makes mistakes; da problem with both Clinton and W. was the lack of honesty and honor in ownin' up to them.


"Goin' after the terrorists??". War without national sacrifice is just LBJ's "Guns and Butter" all over again. Leads to nuthin' but moral and fiscal bankruptcy, and long-term harm to our armed services and our national security.


Problem is we're lookin' ahead to another election like 2000 and 2004, where both parties are so stuck in the mud because of their ideological extremes that we'll end up with another polarizin' set of "two evils" choices. Gawd, a return to a Clinton dynasty instead of a Bush dynasty? Surely America can do better than two "royal" families.


Where do I go to elect someone who's honest and honorable?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonzo1, I am looking to the future when I consider the economy. I know we're having good times right now, even with the high gas prices (which, BTW, I am not particularly concerned about). My concern is the less tangible (for now) price we're going to pay in the future for today's gluttony. The national debt under any measure has gone from bad (under Reagan/Bush) to obscene (under W)...administrations that masqueraded as conservative. I hope I'm wrong about the consequences of such massive debt but I'm not optimistic. I can't under any circumstance agree that we are stronger as a nation when we owe more than when we owe less.

And I think that even with his obvious failings you'll agree that Carter was, as Beavah mentioned, honest and honorable. Same for Gerald Ford and we unceremoniously dumped him as well. I can't say the same for the present administration, not any part of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah and Packsaddle,

It sure is more pleasant to disagree with you two than with Merlyn.

I'll agree that Carter was honest and honorable. carter's character is probably what did him in, he was too honest and too honorable if there is really such a thing.


Regarding Ford, all he ever wanted to be (politically) was Speaker of the House. As we know, he became President, I think he did an acceptable job, but the nation wanted something different, and boy did we get that.



I'll also agree that it's different to fight a war and not have any real sacrifice at home. Americans (in general) have forgotten about Afganistan everything else happens at home without interruption.


The national debt was coming down until the war started, then, well, you gotta spend money to run a war, but I recall a recent news article correctly, President Bush has a plan to be debt free in 8 or so years.



I believe President Bush is a decent, honest and honorable man.

I don't agree with every W has done, but I'm glad he's our president.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Gonzo's statement that George W. Bush is a decent, honorable, honest man. The thing I have always admired about Bush is that he does what he believes is RIGHT, not what he believes is POPULAR.


I voted for Bush both times, and although I disagree with some of his policies, (I feel he is too soft on illegal immigration and I'm disappointed with the overspending) I would not change my vote if I could go back in time.


I couldn't trust Gore or Kerry. The first has made himself out to be an expert on Global warming, (and of course, the inventor of the internet!?) but he has no qualifications for that position. As a matter of fact, he produces WAY more carbon than the average person, yet he chides us for the way WE live! Kerry couldn't make a decision without first checking with all his advisors, and we all know about his flip-flopping. So, yes, I am glad I voted for Bush both times.


If the next President is someone I disapprove of, then I will continue to do what I have been doing, and that is to pray that God will help ALL of our leaders make the right decisions. If everyone in our country joined me in that prayer, then we would have a great country! Will you join me?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...