Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Noble
But not in Bush v. Gore.

Had SCOTUS not ruled the way they did, then the Democrats would have succesfully stolen the election from Bush.

Although good points have been made by some authors (Bugliosi), there are several pertinent facts conveniently overlooked:

1. Dems sought to throw out ballots under questionable circumstances.

2. The Democrats sought to change the rules of play during the counting.

3. Increased handling of ballots results in manipulated ballots.

4. Dem operatives have published papers or articles explaining how they can manipulate elections to their side (Count, recount and keep counting, until your ahead, then stop and declare you won).

5. Democrats have a history of illegal or questionable methods used to sway elections (Nixon 1960, Missouri 2000).

6. Democrats have voted to seat their own man in spite of no proof that he actually won the election (Indiana 1988 Cong. race).

Maybe Scotus was wrong, but the outcome was not. The Dems got what they deserved and America got the right man.

34 posted on 12/09/2003 6:09:46 PM PST by Michael.SF. (THECLINTONSARESCUMTHECLINTOSARESCUMTHECLINTONSARESCUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Michael.SF.
Had SCOTUS not ruled the way they did, then the Democrats would have succesfully stolen the election from Bush.

Do you mean that, when the Congress assembled in joint session on January 6, 2001 to count the electoral votes that the Republican majority would have counted the illegally and extraconstitutionally appointed Gore electors from Florida, instead of the alternative slate of Bush electors which surely would have been appointed (legally and constitutionally) by the Florida Legislature?

Why on earth do you think they would have done that?

And why is the expansion of Supreme Court power into something which is supposed to be handled by the People in Congress assembled a good thing?

There is zero-ZERO-chance that Gore would have been President if the post-electoral process had followed the Eleventh Amendment as clarified by the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877.

58 posted on 12/09/2003 6:53:17 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Michael.SF.
Democrats have a history of illegal or questionable methods used to sway elections (Nixon 1960, Missouri 2000).

Actually, they've being doing it for over 100 years.

All persons desiring to vote the Democratic ticket are registered without personal application, and certificates are furnished them either before or on the day of election without even the formality of an oath as to eligibility. Registration the fountain-source of election, curtails Republican suffrage by the expense and inconvenience it entails upon persons not living at the county-seat, by refusal through willful neglect to register Republicans, and by fraud of the supervisor in making false entries; it adds to the Democratic vote through his fraud in unlawfully adding to the names on the registration-books those of all persons who are expected to vote the Democratic ticket....  
....At a neighboring poll another scene is enacted. The polls are open, the boxes shown, the voters deposit their ballots, there is general levity, and everything appears to be fair. There are three hundred Republican voters; the Democracy have secured forty or fifty votes, and the polls close. The votes are counted; there are two or three hundred more ballots than names on the poll-list; instead of fifty Democratic ballots there are three hundred and fifty...

Robert Smalls, North American Review, 1890
80 posted on 12/09/2003 7:29:05 PM PST by visualops (The costs of fighting the War on Terror are significant -the costs of not fighting are unimaginable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson