 |
Latest | Greatest | Lobby | Journals | Search | Options | Help | Login |
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
JHB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-16-03 09:36 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. But in the 2000 decision they specifically said... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| -"We'll now see if the Supreme Court meant what it said in Bush v Gore" | joeybee12 | Sep-16-03 09:33 AM | #0 |
 -
But in the 2000 decision they specifically said... |
JHB | Sep-16-03 09:36 AM | #1 |
 -
Precedent! |
joeybee12 | Sep-16-03 09:42 AM | #4 |
 -
I know that it says that, but it just doesn't work that way. |
Brian Sweat | Sep-16-03 09:48 AM | #6 |
| -
And THAT's how we know it was bullshit! |
Argumentus | Sep-16-03 09:52 AM | #7 |
| -
To think that Bush v. Gore meant that it is unconstitutional. . . . |
StopThief | Sep-16-03 09:40 AM | #2 |
| -
The issue is NOT "excatly the same contraptions" |
Capn Sunshine | Sep-16-03 09:46 AM | #5 |
| -
One scarry thing that could come out of this... |
Homer12 | Sep-16-03 09:42 AM | #3 |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC