[Vision2020] Who are you voting for and why?

[Ted Moffett]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:

"I think most of the Court's cases nowadays surround very narrow rulings
that affect only a very few people.."
------------------------

I don't know the time period defined by "nowadays" but in 2000 the fate our
entire nation and hundreds of thousands in Iraq, was decided for the worse
by the SCOTUS, with conservative justices Scalia and Thomas contribution
critical, when they undermined democratic principles by blocking the
Florida vote recount process in the famous 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision,
handing W. Bush the presidency.  As it has been famously put, W. Bush was
"selected not elected." this with Gore winning the popular vote.

We are still living with the disastrous results of the W. Bush presidency.

I am almost certain that with Gore as president the US would not have
invaded Iraq, and the vast national treasure lost and loss of US lives that
resulted from that invasion, would not have occurred. If Gore had somehow
prevailed in the Florida vote recount, and by some methods of examining
this recount process he could have, millions of US citizens would not have
been subjected to the W. Bush presidency, which it also could be argued
contributed to the current economic woes in the US, given the W. Bush
deregulation and tax policies, while waging two expensive wars.  It is
without doubt that the butterfly ballot confusion in Palm Beach County in
Florida by itself alone resulted in Gore losing thousands of votes, which
would have handed Florida to Gore:
Newspaper: Butterfly ballot cost Gore White House
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

As attorney Vincent Bugliosi's book on this issue declares...
http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/his35_fiat.html
"The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution
and Chose Our President"

More examination of this SCOTUS decision:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/

Conclusion
   *Decision:* 5 votes for Bush, 4 vote(s) against
*Legal provision:*

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their
ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment,"
the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for
recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in
theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different
standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and
county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the
court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time
remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take
advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make
broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present
case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas)
argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the
Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the
state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed
with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme
violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to
the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned.
Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and
Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the
Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the
Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that
every vote be counted.
 ------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:

 I think most of the Court's cases nowadays surround very narrow rulings
> that affect only a very few people...things along the lines of
> extraordinary circumstances surrounding a pending execution perhaps that
> might affect some obscure law.  I personally prefer an evenly divided Court
> with 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 swing or however else the the
> numbers can be broken down in a balanced way.  I don't want to see the
> court stacked to one side or the other.  When was the last time a supreme
> nominated by a Democratic president turned out to be conservative?  I can't
> name one.  Yet look at all the Republican nominations that drifted to the
> center and in some cases the hard left: Harry Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul
> Stevens (Ford), O'Connor (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (George H W
> Bush), Roberts (George W Bush).
>
> Republicans try with all their might using code words like 'state's
> rights' and 'strict constructionist' to try and gauge whether or not their
> nominations will adhere to their political ideals, but more often than not,
> it doesn't work and they're flabbergasted when things like Obamacare isn't
> struck down.
>
> Presently I'm not in fear of Republican appointees to the Court.
>
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> From: suehovey at moscow.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; godshatter at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who are you voting for and why?
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:59:12 -0700
>
>
>  Just a question, Scott.  Why do you feel Supreme Court nominations
> aren’t worth a lot?  Your sentence that follows your statement doesn’t
> negate the value of the makeup of the Court. Maybe swings, hardly liberal.
> Well I suppose one could say Warren did turn much more liberal, but his
> appointment was to keep him out of a presidential race, not so much because
> of his political bent.
>
> Sue H.
>
>
>
>  *From:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:57 PM
> *To:* godshatter at yahoo.com ; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Who are you voting for and why?
>
>  I'm undecided.  It's almost impossible that I'd vote for Romney/Ryan,
> but never say 'never' and it would make no difference to me whether they
> win the White House or whether Obama/Biden are reelected.  I don't
> particularly see too much difference between them and I don't see either of
> them being able to exert much influence over the deeply partisan Congress.
> Supreme Court nominations aren't worth a whole lot any more.  Many a
> Republican nomination over the last several decades have turned out to be
> liberal or swings anyway.
>
> The over riding reason that I'm not putting a whole of effort into
> deciding who to vote for is because my vote (or lack thereof) will have
> zero outcome on the election because I do not live in an all important
> swing state and it's a foregone conclusion as to which camp gets all of my
> state's electoral votes.  Beyond that, Obama will have already been
> declared the winner by the time I pull the proverbial lever because the
> polls will have already closed across all the eastern, central, and
> mountain states.
>
> So I'm just kind of enjoying all of the political theater at this point.
> I'd prefer a heck of a lot more mud slinging from the both candidates, but
> it looks like they're going to play it clean with all the 'he's a nice guy,
> we just disagree' comments thus far.
>
> -Scott
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121003/42048042/attachment-0001.html>