On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><br>
"I think most of the Court's cases nowadays surround very narrow rulings that affect only a very few people.."<br>------------------------<br><br>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. <br>
<br>We are still living with the disastrous results of the W. Bush presidency.<br><br>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:<font><br>
Newspaper: Butterfly ballot cost Gore White House</font><font><br><a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS">http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS</a></font><br>
<br>As attorney Vincent Bugliosi's book on this issue declares...<br><a href="http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/his35_fiat.html">http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/his35_fiat.html</a><br><font style="font-weight:bold" size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"The Betrayal of America:
How the Supreme Court Undermined
the Constitution and Chose Our President</font>"<br>
<font size="+1"></font><br>More examination of this SCOTUS decision:<br><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/">http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/</a><br><br><div class="field field-type-text field-field-conclusion">
<div class="field-label">Conclusion </div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="view view-case-decisions view-id-case_decisions view-display-id-block_2 view-dom-id-1">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last">
<div>
<b>Decision:</b> 5 votes for Bush, 4 vote(s) against<br>
<b>Legal provision:</b> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div> <div class="field-item odd">
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
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).<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>Presently I'm not in fear of Republican appointees to the Court.<br><br>-Scott<br><br><div><div></div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com" target="_blank">suehovey@moscow.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><div class="im">
<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who are you voting for and why?<br></div>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:59:12 -0700<div><div class="h5"><br><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sue H. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div style="font:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="scooterd408@hotmail.com" href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">Scott Dredge</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:57 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a> ; <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">viz</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Who are you voting for and
why?</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div dir="ltr">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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>-Scott<br><br>
<div>
<div></div>
<hr><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>