Samantha
Samantha's JournalI am not arguing with you but I see things a bit differently
It is not just the written letters in the words of the law that matter, it is also the intent. One of the biggest horrors in that Supreme Court ruling was that the Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to become involved in state elections; it delegates that right to conduct Presidential elections to the states themselves, provided each outlines the rules in their state constitutions prior to the election. This Florida had done.
Two years prior to election 2000, there was a contest of a mayoral election by a candidate who disputed his loss. The "winner" of that election was in office a good amount of time before the lawsuit was resolved. It turned out the candidate actually occupying that seat did not literally win, and the plaintiff in the suit was declared the victor. Resolving this kind of debacle would not happen again, the Florida legislature amended its state constitution to modify the procedures for contesting/protesting an election. The revised rules were the ones Gore went by, and the Republicans, who were using the old rules, ridiculed him saying he was a sore loser.
The last word in that 2000 election properly belonged to the Florida Supreme Court. In that opinion, that Court said "the right to vote is paramount", which to me is indisputable. That Court ordered the resumption of the recount, which the Supreme Court using that equal weight rule and also falling back on the Safe Harbor provision blocked. It had absolutely no legal justification to interfere. The Florida Supreme Court should have had the last word.
But the threats you mention the Florida legislature having made previously to still send a Republican slate to the Electoral College even if Gore prevailed in the recount was also an unconstitutional move. One cannot change the rules of the election (Constitutionally) after the popular vote but before the counting of the electoral college votes for that particular election. In order to be valid, if rules are changed after an election, they cannot go into effect until the next election. This is to prevent the "fixing" of election results, which of course was what the Florida legislature was attempting to do, but had they actually done this, the Electoral College could have not counted that slate from Florida (and there was precedent (yes, rare, but existing) for doing so. This latter information is discussed by David Bois in his book Courting Justice but unfortunately, this argument was not publicly presented during the recount controversy to offset Republican threats.
In hiding behind that equal weight argument and the Safe Harbor provision, the Supreme Court discounted 51 million votes nationwide. I ask you, how can one argue a failure to apply the equal weight argument is less than fair to those who voted the first time in a state election and more fair to those whose votes were not counted as a legal means to justify what happened in one state as a weapon to punish the voters nationwide? It can't be logically justified.
And speaking of logic, that Safe Harbor provision was written by the authors to ensure that the pony express riders left on horseback on time, carrying the slate of electors vote to the Electoral College in time to be included in its official count. In the days of electronic submission, Federal Express, UPS and other alternatives, exactly why would one observe the literal words of the Constitution rather than the intent. The intent of those words was states needed to get their results to the Electoral College in order for them to be counted, an intent totally disregarded by Scalia, et. al.
On so many levels, that Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision should have never happened. On another level, I continue to be appalled at Scalia's distortions on these issues and his chronic appearances on cable totally misrepresenting the facts to the public. And no one contradicts him. The last appearance he made when he referred to the Bush v. Gore decision, he said the Supreme Court decided the case because that was what Gore wanted. That was always Jim Baker's goal from the inception of the controversy, to get the issue to the Supreme Court, which he knew would rule in Bush's favor. Gore was always opposed at that point to the courts deciding the issue because the knew at least half the Country would never recognize the winner of a lawsuit as the legitimate winner of the election. And so right he was about that.
I apologize for this long post, but this is one issue that always sets me off.
Sam
That is such a horrendous lie I cannot believe he said that
It was ALWAYS Baker's intention to get the matter decided by the Supreme Court, and that was from the early moments when the recount dispute broke. They (meaning the Republicans) knew if they could just get it there, Bush* would prevail. Notice I avoided the use of the word "win."
That is exactly why so many taunts were issued to Al Gore, hoping they could goad him into suing. But Al Gore knew half the Country would never accept the one who won a lawsuit as "legitimate." And he was so right about that. So the Republicans filed the first lawsuit, although one reads to the contrary sometimes, because Gore did not budge.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court had absolutely no authority to undo the Florida Supreme's Court decision. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to run elections to the states, provided each outlines their election laws clearly in their state constitutions. Florida did have its rules outlined, unfortunately both its old ones and its new ones, in its Constitution. Bush played by the old rules, and Gore followed the ones enacted two years before the Presidential election -- contesting the election results and the steps outlining exactly the procedures to be followed.
Once the Florida Supreme Court ruled with its famous words, "The right to vote is paramount" (and that is so true), the matter should have ended with its ruling. For the Supreme Court to intervene based on that Safe Harbor provision (a provision enacted during the days the Pony Express carried the electoral college votes to Washington for the official count and was intended to set a deadline on when the horse and the rider had to be dispatched!) and that frivolous equal weight bomb which didn't even apply to the situation IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OUTRAGE AND MANY WILL NEVER GET OVER. WE JUST LIVE AND LEARN FROM IT ON A CONTINUAL DAILY BASIS.
And your legacy, Scalia, will be that history will regard you as one of the enablers that selected Bush* to be President, a man not qualified in the least to do so and not the winner of the popular vote or the legitimate winner of the electoral college vote since that Florida slate should not have been counted since it violated the state's own constitutional provisions, and in so doing, Scalia you put a man in the Oval Office who TANKED this Country, cost people their jobs, their lives and their trust in their Government. THAT WILL BE YOUR LEGACY.
And YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET OVER THAT.
Sam
He is a one of a kind
Someone at Current made that remark everyone is replaceable but that is not literally true. It is true that any one warm body can replace another but as for as quality of performance, Keith Olbermann is in a league of his own. No one can replace him. There have been several times I have missed his commentary so much. One of those was during the Wisconsin recall.
Another thing I wonder about is that lawsuit. Suddenly, everything went quiet. I am wondering if a settlement was reached or if a trial is in the making.
Everyone talks about Keith's mistakes and his ego, but he was correct about the technical glitches. I watched his show religiously and some I saw some for myself. They were worse than the usual ones you see on other networks. And not paying for the electric bill -- there is no excuse for that. Keith Olbermann is such a perfectionist who demands so much for himself I think he had zero ability to tolerate underperformance in those around him.
It is simply a shame that for the benefit of everyone, Current could not have seen fit to try and reach some approachable solution to the problems. Keith had several stellar "friends" and guests on his show, and those people were hurt as well. They were innocent bystanders.
As far as ego is concerned, I don't think anyone could strive to be a top-notch commentator in the big leagues without a super supply of confidence. Those are tremendously big jobs with horrendous schedules and stresses. It is also true networks are run with personnel of equally large egos. It is a pretty tricky terrain for all.
I certainly hope to see and hear Keith Olbermann again soon, but I don't even hear any rumors any more. Maybe he is not even trying too hard because he feels he needs a rest. He has suffered some big losses in recent years besides changing jobs. All of these are in the top ten stressors. I guess he needs some time. It happens to us all from time to time.
Sam
Let me ask you a volatile question
Hypothetically speaking, you find out a candidate for President over the last nine years made a gazillion million dollars but paid no taxes on it. You think about the fact that you are formerly a middle-class tax-paying American now tottering on the brink of poverty. Your blood pressure starts to rise when you remember this candidate endorsed the Ryan Plan. That is the Republican-endorsed plan which cuts taxes for the super wealthy but increases them on middle class and poverty stricken Americans while gutting the social safety net.
How could this possibly -- hypothetically speaking, of course -- happen?
It could possibly happen if that candidate declared to the IRS he or she made a nominal amount of income for a person in the wealthiest one-percent of Americans. That amount might be possibly $100,000. The balance of funds this individual realized during the current calendar tax year is in the millions of dollars. When added to the previous eight tax years, the total is a gazillion million dollars. In each of those tax years, the untaxed portion was investment income. The investment profit was sheltered using the carried-over interest provision in the tax code. There are clues which suggest this is a pattern of conduct habitually practiced.
It has been publicly reported that a number of extremely well-to-do individuals have millions of dollars in off-shore tax shelters, such as the Cayman Islands, Swiss banks, perhaps even Bermuda. These individuals have proposed bringing the millions home if the U.S. Government will agree to tax the monies at a rate not to exceed five percent.
Piece by piece, a picture starts to form. The clearer it becomes, the more outrage you feel. This candidate has the audacity to run for President of the United States after exhibiting a pattern of tax avoidance during a time of recession -- some argue a depression -- while publicly advocating that the middle class and impoverished persons pick up the slack tax evaders have created. Cut unemployment benefits, eradicate unions, cut food stamps but let them eat cake (as long as they bake it themselves).
Let me ask you a volatile question. Would the collective outrage of millions of voters realizing this ugly truth result in a tsunami of revulsion that would wash this individual's candidacy out of the political waters? Would this type of selfish, arrogant conduct be so repulsive to the collective voting public the revelation of this behavior would become the Bain of this candidate’s political life and Presidential quest?
What is your answer?
Sam
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 9,314
