Step back, take a deep breath and think about this...

D

David Scott

New member
Rather than get all het up about the Florida court decisions, consider that both are consistent with a very valid principle -- whenever it is possible to determine the intent of a voter, that vote should count. Everyone has the right to have their vote counted.

The refusal to throw out the absentee ballots is a refusal to throw out ballots where the intent of a voter is known. IMHO the officials who allowed breaches of procedure ought to get zinged for it, but the will of the voter should not be thwarted because they messed up.

The decision to recount applies only to "undervotes" -- ballots where the machine did not register a vote. These have to be hand examined to determine whether the intent of the voter is knowable. IMHO all "undervotes" in every election ought to be hand examined, because no voter should be disenfranchised because of a machine error. The FL Supreme Court rightly refused the idea of only recounting certain counties that have a Democratic majority. They ordered a recount of all undervotes in every county. This will probably have the biggest effect in counties that use the punch-card ballots, since those ballots have been shown to be prone to missed reads (and I hope they will be obsoleted before the next election).

The actions of these courts are all directed toward deciding the Florida vote based on the will of the voters. That is right and just. It's not a gimme for Gore or Bush. Many of the counties being recounted went strongly to Bush, so don't push any panic buttons yet.

As for charges of "stealing" the election and "manufacturing" new votes for the recount, my frank opinion is that this is just heated rhetoric. All of the counts are being observed by both parties. Anyone trying any monkey business is just asking for a public flogging.

The only just way to settle this is to count every vote where the will of the voter can be determined. That is now going forward. Anyone who is dedicated to seeing the process of democracy at work should be overjoyed. You may not like the winner; I may not like the winner (this is highly likely since I don't like either of them. Where's Harry Browne when we need him?). In every election, there are people who don't like the winner. What's important is that the right thing is being done, and that whoever wins, they will have won because more people voted for them.

I sincerely hope that the recounters meet the Sunday deadline, so that the State Legislature will not be so likely to execute the partisan preemptive strike they have been planning. I also hope that both candidates will accept the most accurate tally possible, and let us get on with life.

Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States of America ----- WHATSHISNAME!
 
An undervote is not an instance "where the machine did not register a vote."

An undervote is where the person did not vote in a race. It can be as normal as what was called, in simpler times, an "abstention". About 2% of voters nationwide abstained from voting in the presidential race. Abstaining from voting--either as a protest, or perhaps out of genuine indecision, or for whatever personal reason, is a practice as old as elections.

The only new thing about that is the nonsense of calling them "undervotes". They are most likely abstentions. Or other kinds of voting irregularities (IE dimpled chads) that are routinely kicked out nationwide.

This democrat mantra of "count every vote" is pure horse doo-doo. They've been counted and recounted.

Don't take this as a flame, David. None is intended. But I for one have had enough of that particular theme from the Klinton/Gore koolaid drinkers.
 
FL law states that for a vote to count, it must reflect a Clear Intention of the Voter. Well if these ballots were CLEAR they would have been counted my a machine. Unfortunately, they are going to try to interpret the ballots rather than a yes or no.
 
David-
While I might disagree with some of your terminology, I agree with your sentiments, in principle. But there's the entire problem.

The Democrats continue to spin this in a manner that suggests how we "feel" should determine the rules; our individual sense of "fairness" should dictate the next step. And so, 4 FL Supremes have responded on the basis of their sentiment. The result: chaos and division.

Elections are not to be decided in this manner. They are to be decided based on The Law....not any individual or group sense of "fairness". For instance, I'd prefer to see Gore in the White House than a Bush Presidency appointed by the legislature.....but that's not The Law. (Flame proof suit on....that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! ;))

IMHO, the Florida Supreme Court split decision goes way beyond the bounds of "judicial activism". The dissenting opinions poke 747 size holes in it: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=49393 If this decision is not overturned and Gore wins the count, I'll consider it "fair"....it went thru the system. I won't be happy about it, but I won't be questioning legitimacy; I'll be preparing for payback in 2002 and 2004.

Hoever, these are discussions of the angels dancing on the heads of pins. Bush won the election. Bush will be the next President. I've said that since the morning after the election and I still believe it.
Rich
 
I support your principle, but

I support rules.

The FL SC has made up the rules as they go. That is chaos and we are finding that out.

1) FL SC refused to force Miami-Dade or Palm-Beach to do a recount early last week. Now they are forcing them to do it. They have overruled THEMSELVES. And FL Law leaves recounts up to the canvassing boards. They have changed that.

2) FL Law says any recounts must be a recount of ALL ballots. FL SC has changed that.

3) FL Law says recounts must be completed in FULL before they can be in the certified total. FL SC ordered 383 votes included for gore even though those counties did not finish. FL SC again has changed the law.

4) FL Law says ceritfication SHALL be done 7 days after election. FL SC changed that law.

5) FL Law says contests will be heard by "Circuit Courts" no by any other courts. FL SC changed that.

Seems to me that the 'manner for electing electors' chosen by the FL Leg has been thrown out and is now being run by the FL SC. CLEAR, CLEAR violation of Art II Sec I

madison46

ps. 1) We don't have a right to vote for President unless the state leg say we do.

2) We live in a Represenative Republic. If the FL Leg wants to pick the electors, then they have every right. (however, I think they could be on thin ice as they have already chosen the manner in which to do that. I don't know if they can change after Nov 7, but since they have primary power, they just may...)
 
David: I have to respectfully disagree… As you can see from the way the hand counts were going there is clear bias by individuals in their counting… it could not be otherwise. I’m a CPA and sworn to audit without bias….. I could not audit these ballots as I to would have bias even if it was only subconscious. There is an implied bias just from their party affiliation. Machines have no bias. Now there has to be a reason why these machines throw out these ballots. The reason being is that the machine could not determine a clear indication of the voters intent. I trust this result. I do not trust some democrat with bias trying to determine the intent of the voter. All this other rhetoric is merely a means to garner public support that will justify introducing bias into the election. Both sides know that if you recount these ballots enough times that the bias factor will change the results in favor of those counting. Be it intentional or not.
 
Florida Legislature/Emergency session

Gentlemen,
It it patently clear we have an activist Fla Supreme court, the only logical thing to do at this point is to IMPEACH all the Justices.

The Fla legislature should do this no matter the outcome of the recount.

It would send a clear signal to ALL judges and courts across this country.

If we are to remain a nation based on the rule of law, then we MUST insist that the rule of law be followed.

If not, I truly fear for our country.

If Mr. Gore succeeds in this coup, then God help us.

This next four years will be the most hell on wheels we have ever seen.

No one is going to recognize his legitimacy, other than the clowns around his inner circle, and the welfare junkies.

The Military may be on the verge of for the first time in our history of standing down.

Where do you go when you have alienated over 70% of the peoples?.

I'll tell you to hell in a handbasket.

I will remain, as Rich, the optimist to the bitter end.

I think, and hope that the Supreme Court will issue a stay, and stop this nonsense.

And that the real victor for the fourth time, will emerge.

In a new report a Florida judge has issued an order to include in the recount ALL the military ballots that were cast out.:)

Divination in the Bible was punishable by death, how can you determine voter intent, when YOU aren't that VOTER?.

Democrats say , and think if a voter cast (punched) holes for other dem's in the race, then it automatically means they MEANT to vote for Dem ALGORE.( The great Carnac!)

How many of you have ever voted, and chose NOT to vote for a candidate, but voted for the rest of the ballot?. I have and many times.

Had someone came back and looked at MY ballot, and made a determination on MY behalf, I would be incensed, and outraged at the timerity of the act, and thought.

So, in reality, there is absolutely no way to determine INTENT, unless the chad is nearly completely dislodged.

To make a judgement in any other way is ludicrous, and is clearly a " count until we like the results".

We are at a serious crossroads, and we are treading on very dangerous ground..................

As Joseph Stalin said, " It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes'.
 
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
Constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one,
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges
are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others,
the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their
corps. ...And their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in
office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are,
to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
--Thomas Jefferson
 
count every vote where the will of the voter can be determined.

Aye, there's the rub.

According to Democrats involved in the count, that includes determining said will from:
- a bit of light can be seen peeking through the side of a pre-cut chad
- a dimple when all other votes on the ballot are perfectly punched through
- an untouched chad on an otherwise party-line-voted ballot
- two Democrats and a Republican voting on what the determined will of the voter is
- counting votes only in areas with a strong pro-Gore bias

EVERY VOTE HAS BEEN COUNTED - TWICE. Some three times. Some four.

There is, in addition to THE LAW (which is unfairly and illegally being rewritten repeatedly in Gore's favor), the unwritten premise that a voter must make a reasonable effort to make his/her vote clear; if the vote is not clear to a machine designed and long used to read clear votes, then, well, TS. The voter has the right to be stupid, but that doesn't mean the state must go through extraordinary lengths to determin the will of the stupid.

Rules were in place to handle this whole thing cleanly. The votes were counted twice. Gore had plenty of time to call for a statewide recount; instead, he delayed, prompted biased limited recounts, had the law rewritten, etc.

Gore had favorable laws to follow, but he didn't.
Voters were told to make their choices clear, but they didn't.
Tough. Ignorance IS painful.
 
We live under the rule of law, supposedly. The law in effect at the time of the election has not been followed. It has been blocked by the Supreme Court of Florida. Guess what, folks? A lot of people all over the US didn't vote for Sore or Bush. Their intent is easy to determine-they didn't want either of them. Gore has one aim-to recount until he is ahead and then call a halt to recounting. He could care about the will of the people-he just doesn't have a clue what to do with his life otherwise.
 
INTENT OF THE VOTER????? I don't see it . I personally voted for some of both parties . I voted on RKBA . If people voted for 2 dems and 1 rep AND not for pres. can it be assumed that since the majority of their picks were dem
they "would have" voted dem for pres but in fact voted for neither . If they left a clear mark as to indicate they tried to vote for someone then maybe there's room for movement .
The Florida courts seem not to be able to even read the law correctly . How , pray tell , can anyone read a voters mind ?
 
David, you make many good points ...

I would generally agree with you, except for the following issues:

1. Trust - based upon what we have seen in this disgusting process, I have absolutely no confidence in the elections people involved down in Florida. Carol Roberts is a great example - she is a strident, partisan Democrat on the Palm Beach County canvassing board. It is clear that this is a great liberal crusade for this socialist. I wonder how many more 'Carol Roberts' there are on these canvassing boards? And, they are to be major factors in choosing our next President? No thanks.

2. Counting only undervotes - I think it is a convenient and deceptive ploy to only focus on this issue, even if it is across all counties. There was a great letter in the Wall Street Journal this past Tuesday, from an election judge in Houston, TX. He gave some sad examples of how election fraud can arise. He pointed out that overvotes are perhaps the bigger question. (an 'overvote' is, in this example, when a voter casts two votes for President) An unscrupulous poll worker can take a Bush-voted ballot, punch out the chad for Gore, and voila ... an overvote - that is, since there are now two votes for President, the ballot is rejected. The result? Bush just lost a vote ... that is as good as finding a vote for Gore. This judge indicated that overvotes were historically about 1% to 2% of the total, but there were some Florida counties running at 4% to 6%! There were a lot of problems in this election, and to focus on only the undervotes is at best myopic, and at worst, deceptive larceny.

3. What standards? - as far as I can tell, the FL Supreme Court has given only the most general advice as to how to count these votes. It sounds as though we still have varying standards to be applied across FL - therefore, see my point 1. above.


That is my logical take on this. My emotional take is that Gore is a thief and a liar, and I will never, ever recognize the SOB as President. Never. I no longer view Democrats / liberals as the 'loyal opposition' as the Brit's say - too many are lying, hypocritical scumbags, and they'll be treated accordingly in the future. I look forward to working towards their future political defeats. This isn't just politics anymore ... this is political war. And, make no mistake about it - the 'Carol Roberts' of the world will stop at nothing, and if they win, I think we can kiss individual rights away.

One last point - I don't know how many times now I've heard talking heads on MSNBC or CNN let it slip about 'our' side when mentioning the Gore team. With the exception of FOX, the media is a political enemy as well. They've cast their votes with the scumbags.

I'm sure some will view my words as shrill hyperbole. But, I am of the opinion that we're losing this war because too many of us (including me) failed to realize we were even at war with these scumbags. It is time we struck back with the same fury we see from them.

Regards from AZ
 
David,

I respectfully, but fundamentally, disagree with you.

Here goes:


Rather than get all het up about the Florida court decisions, consider that both are consistent with a very valid principle -- whenever it is possible to determine the intent of a voter, that vote should count. Everyone has the right to have their vote counted.
Click to expand...

Any vote that requires an interpretation is invalid. Period. If you do not have the voter standing beside you to tell you their true intention, then the vote simply must be ruled invalid. We cannot devolve into this process of "determining the intent of the voter" because we simply cannot do so unambiguously.

What of the intentional undervotes that will now be interpreted as votes?

For those who did not properly punch the cards, what of personal responsibility? Are we going to hold the hands of every voter now? If these voters were on hand to clarify their vote, them I am all for it, but to allow a third party to decide, by assumed proxy, the intent of the voter is entirely untenable.


The refusal to throw out the absentee ballots is a refusal to throw out ballots where the intent of a voter is known. IMHO the officials who allowed breaches of procedure ought to get zinged for it, but the will of the voter should not be thwarted because they messed up.
Click to expand...

This is a case of a third party taking some action that was completely unknown to the voter. The voter fulfilled their responsibilities in good faith and as a result, those absentee ballots that were clearly marked should be counted. Those that were not clearly marked, regardless of the faithfulness with which the vote was cast, should not be counted. If it were otherwise, elections are meaningless because the final outcome would be based upon the subjective interpretation of votes by a third party.


The decision to recount applies only to "undervotes" -- ballots where the machine did not register a vote. These have to be hand examined to determine whether the intent of the voter is knowable. IMHO all "undervotes" in every election ought to be hand examined, because no voter should be disenfranchised because of a machine error. The FL Supreme Court rightly refused the idea of only recounting certain counties that have a Democratic majority. They ordered a recount of all undervotes in every county. This will probably have the biggest effect in counties that use the punch-card ballots, since those ballots have been shown to be prone to missed reads (and I hope they will be obsoleted before the next election).

The actions of these courts are all directed toward deciding the Florida vote based on the will of the voters. That is right and just. It's not a gimme for Gore or Bush. Many of the counties being recounted went strongly to Bush, so don't push any panic buttons yet.
Click to expand...

You are missing the main point of Bush's protest. The guidelines for counting undervotes are different for each county. What would count as a vote in one county will not count as a vote in another county.

This is a major problem of fairness and equitability, for both the candidates and the voters. To have a third party interpret the intentions of a voter on an undervoted ballot is the real disenfranchisement of these voters. What if they intentionally undervoted?

No vote that was cast in the election, valid or otherwise, could be, by definition, rightly brought under the "disenfranchisement" umbrella. After all, if you cast your vote, you were not disenfranchised. When all is said and done, it is the responsibility of the voter to ensure their ballot is correctly cast.


As for charges of "stealing" the election and "manufacturing" new votes for the recount, my frank opinion is that this is just heated rhetoric. All of the counts are being observed by both parties. Anyone trying any monkey business is just asking for a public flogging.
Click to expand...

The people guilty of monkey business are the people setting the rules for what counts as a vote and what does not. Bring any valid protest you want; theirs is the final opinion that counts, regardless of whether the rules are fair or not.

I am not all that worried that the counters themselves are doing anyting wrong here. It is the rules they are given to determine "valid" votes that concerns me. They are entirely subjective and vary from county to county.


The only just way to settle this is to count every vote where the will of the voter can be determined. That is now going forward. Anyone who is dedicated to seeing the process of democracy at work should be overjoyed. You may not like the winner; I may not like the winner (this is highly likely since I don't like either of them. Where's Harry Browne when we need him?). In every election, there are people who don't like the winner. What's important is that the right thing is being done, and that whoever wins, they will have won because more people voted for them.
Click to expand...

Come now, don't accuse folks of being undemocratic because they don't like what's going on in Florida. For reasons I have explained above, this process is patently unfair, and IMO, illegal.

The will of the voter is not being determined in Florida. The will of s/he who sets the standard for what is a vote and what is not is being determined in Florida. Any rules to govern this process must be determined before the election, not after. If there is a problem, then correct it for the next election.

This is the very reason why this process cannot be allowed to continue, and the reason why the election laws made an attempt to keep this from ever happening. It the election laws are not sufficient, then again, correct them for the next election.


I sincerely hope that the recounters meet the Sunday deadline, so that the State Legislature will not be so likely to execute the partisan preemptive strike they have been planning. I also hope that both candidates will accept the most accurate tally possible, and let us get on with life.
Click to expand...

The legislature is acting for all of the reasons I have outlined, above. I don't like the implications of it either, but two things must occur: 1) The Legislature must protect it's rights and responsibilities as outlined in the US Constitution, and 2) In the interests of its six million voters, Florida must not abdicate its 25 electoral votes for any reason.

--------------

Another problem: The FLA SC ruled to add the Miami-Dade results as they stood as of the ruling. These results were derived from a hand count of all votes cast, not just under votes, in three precincts. This is a problem because the three most heavily Democrat precincts were hand counted to determine whether a hand count should occur county wide (this was done because the Democrats made the protest). Virtually every other precinct in Miami-Dade has a large Republican population (they have large Cuban populations, which normally go Republican--and indeed did so in this election). The Republicans would likely have picked up many votes in the remaining precincts in Miami-Dade.

This is patently unfair. The number that the FLA SC is forcing upon the state is the result of a full hand count in three Democrat precincts. But now we are told that a full hand recount cannot be done, only undervotes can be counted.

The idea that this will bring finality to this election is a myth. The doubt now falls upon the interpretation of the undervotes, rather than whether they were properly counted in the first place.

The FLA SC is entirely out of line here. Their decision is contemptible as a rule of law. They should be ashamed of themselves, and IMO, they should be impeached on the basis of no confidence.

Regards,
Ken
 
Ken, Come on! You know good and damn well the democrats are mind readers of the voters. :D What's really scarey they actually think they are :barf:
 
David,

You say, "I sincerely hope that the recounters meet the Sunday deadline, so that the State Legislature will not be so likely to execute the partisan preemptive strike they have been planning."
-----------------------

I have 3 questions for you.

1) Do you think the (6 Democrat and 1 Independent) Florida Supreme Court Justices based their decision on Florida Law, or was their decision based, even in part, on partisan bias?

2) Is the "opinion" of 7 APPOINTED Justices more legitimate than the Constitutional Duty of the ELECTED Legislature?

3)Wouldn't the actions of the Legislature be a more accurate reflection of the "will of the people" since they, the Legislature, were VOTED for rather than APPOINTED to their position of power?

Give me your thoughts on this.

AHM1776
 
1) Do you think the (6 Democrat and 1 Independent) Florida Supreme Court Justices based their decision on Florida Law, or was their decision based, even in part, on partisan bias?
Click to expand...

Justices are appointed, rather than elected, so that they will not have to concern themselves with getting re-elected when they render decisions. That said, I can accept the possibility of partisanship in the Court as readily as I can accept the possibility of partisanship in a Governor whose brother is a party in the conflict, or a Secretary Of State who is also that party's state campaign co-chair.

2) Is the "opinion" of 7 APPOINTED Justices more legitimate than the Constitutional Duty of the ELECTED Legislature?
Click to expand...

Probably. Justices don't have to worry about prostituting themselves to the special interests and political machine so they can get re-elected.

3)Wouldn't the actions of the Legislature be a more accurate reflection of the "will of the people" since they, the Legislature, were VOTED for rather than APPOINTED to their position of power?
Click to expand...

I think not. It's not uncommon for people to vote one party at state level and the other party at national level. Besides, who's to say that, if asked to re-confirm the choices they made in the last election, that the voters wouldn't decide to throw the incumbents out?

Since I started this thread, the SCOTUS has put the recount on hold, yet I see no one here complaining that the majority of SCOTUS justices are Republican appointees. Frankly, I feel like I'm alone in the wilderness, pi$$ing into the wind. I had the naive hope that somehow we could actually have an election that was fairly run. Silly me. The more I hear, the more I'm convinced that NEITHER side will support the rule of law or the will of the voters if it means the other guy gets in. I'm thoroughy disgusted with all the officials who have taken such a well-designed system and abused it to the point where they're no better than two hookers fighting over a drunk customer with a fat wallet. To all those who believe that their party is the home of purity, integrity and virtue, and the other party is the home of deceit, ill will and depravity, I recommend a thorough reality check. They're ALL liars, cheats and whores.
 
David,

The assertion that ALL of these people are liars and cheats taints an otherwise well reasoned argument.

Implying that the democrat/republican appointment ratio on SCOTUS is indicative of analgous political bias in comparison to the SCOFLA belies the underlying truth which is; basing ones determination of a political agenda by the judgements actually rendered, gives one a strong indication that SCOFLA votes almost entirely by their political affiliations. SCOTUS's republican appointees(aside from the more conservative justices), Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor regularly swing their votes unlike the SCOFLA who nearly always vote in lockstep for the most liberal of causes.
There are a number of republican appointees on SCOTUS who regularly vote in different directions compared to SCOFLA which does not, with the recent 4-3 decision being a notable exception. Reading the SCOFLA's dissenting opinion where the CJ, in a scathing rebuke, states frankly that the majority simply made up new law reveals this.

As far as the assertion that justices will be less likely to be swayed politically than the legislature, your premise may hold true only if you have justices who interpret the law by constitutional principles, rather than personal political agendas. At least we have the opportunity to vote out those legislators who act as you say. We have NO option short of impeachment for rogue justices.Their decisions have clearly revealed political leanings as they are simply making up law as they go. So much for an independant judiciary. Only after the first SCOTUS spanking did the SCOFLA CJ get the message and try to rein them in. The SCOFLA has fluctuated between rogue and kangaroo, in fact, so your argument cuts both ways. I prefer to have some control of the switch.

As far as a fairly run election goes, this was a standard election, warts and all(no need to repeat the statistics mentioned above) until one side decided to subvert the rule of law when it suited their purpose. I think the list of transgressions of the Gore campaign and legal teams, from attempting to discount as many overseas absentee ballots as possible through underhanded means to David Boies' shameless, misleading use of an Illinois case to extend the recount in the first place(during the protest phase) shows which side has been the perpetuator of this fiasco and been willing to lie at all costs. I don't think anyone here believes either party is as pure as the driven snow, no one has contended that. But to deem equal the disparate actions of one side versus the other is undiscerning. I end this with a quote from Pat Cadell who has been a consistent voice throughout the election. The quote let's you know who he is.

"On the Nov. 27 MSNBC Hardball, Caddell said: "I'm a liberal Democrat. I started in Florida politics. I've worked for George McGovern. I've worked for Jimmy Carter. I've worked for Teddy Kennedy, Mario Cuomo. Nobody can question, I think, my credentials and convictions. But I have to tell
you, at this point it's hard to believe that my party, the party that I've belonged to since my great-grandfather-of my family-has become no longer a party of principles, but has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters who need to take power by whatever means and whatever canards they can say." "

Respectfully, Chris..
 
The actions of these courts are all directed toward deciding the Florida vote based on the will of the voters.
Click to expand...
That is certainly the Gore spin, but the military absentee ballots prove that the will of the voters is secondary to a Gore victory.
As for charges of "stealing" the election and "manufacturing" new votes for the recount, my frank opinion is that this is just heated rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Don't take my opinion for it. Carol Roberts said herself that she was willing to go to jail for Al Gore. Gunzberger (sp?) in Broward Co. saw votes for Gore that the other Democrat and the Republican thought were for Bush. We are supposed to trust these people to be fair?
I had the naive hope that somehow we could actually have an election that was fairly run.
Click to expand...
Well, after Daley showed up, that was pretty naive. Does the machine count make errors? Sure, but they are unbiased errors. Running two machine counts and getting the same winner is a pretty good indicator of who won.
I just love the assumption of Algore and the SCOFLA that the country will be better off if we let the people that couldn't figure out how to vote pick the President.
BTW ChrisL, I love the Cadell quote.
TB., NC
 
da Dem votes

They rely on the dead, illegal aliens, felons, convicts, the stupid. fraud and the likes of Gunzburger for their votes.
I agree with Tshoes and Ken Paul plus others on the side of truth and justice for all. Because of this I have cut all Dems and liberals out of my life. Thankfully that added up to only a few dimples people.
As Bob Dole said: They aren't counting votes they are casting them.
Algore will never be my president or representative of anything besides a symbol of evil unleashed.
Mac
 
David,

You respond, "Justices don't have to worry about prostituting themselves to the special interests and political machine so they can get re-elected."

---------------

I appreciate your quick response, but let me point out a few key facts that are very unique in this case.

In the State of Florida, Supreme Court Justices are initially appointed by the Governor. Every six years thereafter, the people of Florida choose whether to retain them or not, through the ballot box.

So, in response to the notion that these Justices don't have to worry about "prostituting themselves to the special interests and political machine so they can get re-elected", I say you are obviously wrong about that.

This is PRECISELY what is happening here. Of course, I think that you and I both know the "political machine" to which I am referring.


AHM1776
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top