What's the real historic, unbiased story of Florida 2000?

[Stultis]

The US Supreme Court voted 7-2 that George Bush's civil rights were being violated by the Florida State Supreme Court. The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court was how to remedy the violation.

I'd also add that the case was, unfortunately, wrongly decided (as to it's basis, not outcome). The core conservatives -- Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas -- wanted to decide the case on Article II of the Constitution, regarding the selection of Presidential electors:

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative

The Florida Supreme Court had, in effect, blatantly rewritten the clear and unambiguous Florida election law -- the "manner" in which the state legislature had "directed" electors to be appointed -- changing specific dates and procedures regarding the challenge/contest (county election commission directed versus court mediated) phases for elections disputes, and the specific certification date. This was a clear and direct violation of Article II. In addition, federal election law clarifies that elections must be decided strictly on the basis of law in place at the time the vote occurred. You can't go back and change the rules ex post facto.

We would now be much better protected against future election stealing gambits of the type habitually practiced by Democrats if Bush v. Gore had been decided on this basis, but tragically Rehnquist could not assemble a majority on these grounds, which were too straightforward for the liberals and "moderates" on the court. Instead Rehnquist had to cobble together a majority on the basis of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sadly this passes over the key Constitutional violation committed by the Florida Supreme Court, instead obsessing obscurely about the entirely subsidiary means it employed in effecting the violation. In so doing, Bush v. Gore not only failed to preclude future violations of Article II by state courts, it even opens new possibilities for justifying such violations! For instance a State Court could hold that election law in place at the time of a Presidential election somehow violated "equal protection" -- easily done considering the woolly and open-ended interpretations to which the standards is prone -- and thereby effectively modify the law on the basis of Bush v. Gore.

THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON WE NEED MORE UNMUDDLED, ORIGINAL INTENT COSERVATIVES ON THE SCOTUS!!!

[Stultis]

The Supreme Court's willingness to hear Bush v. Gore was a mistake. Nothing happened in Florida which would not have been corrected by the Constitutional process.

Interesting analysis, and counterpoint to my contention (see above) the the basis on which the case was decided has actually opened up new possiblities for future offenses along the lines of Floriduh 2K.

[HankReardon]

Yeah, you embarressed yourself. My name is not Einstein, that was a name calling slur, always very embarressing for those who resort to this. Oh yeah, I am well read, I enjoy others' views, no one can accumalate all the knowledge themselves. Free Republic is a great place to get views and share knowledge. Where are all the "Bush stole the election" people at? Quit lurking and tell us where we are wrong, I know you're out there.

[Stultis]

I usually reply that if Bush was "selected" in 2000, then according to the 22nd Amendment he can run for reelection in 2008!

By Golly, you're right!!!

Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Regarding the first clause, the Sore Loserman dead-enders claim that Bush was not "elected" in 2000, and yet regarding the second clause, no "other person was elected" (by the electoral college) for that term.

Bush is eligible (cite Michael Moore v. America)!

[HitmanLV]

Not embarassed, Einstein. Wisecraking name calling is part of my speech pattern. It's my way of calling you less-than-bright for posting your question on FR.

And yes, it was a less-than-bright thing for you to do.

To me, FR is a resource to share info on news developments and commentate on those topical issues. Your post advanced neither cause. I hope you are well read enough to understand that.

You posted a self absorbed question relating to news that is over three years old. There is no shortage of information about the 2000 election on the net, and at no time did I suggest you accumulate or read it all.

I was just suggesting that rather than ask the Freepers to do your research for you, you do it yourself.

If you are as well read and enjoy others points of views, that would be easy.

You are the one who is embarassing, Eisntein, Hank Reardon, or whatever you call yourself. Your post is a waste of bandwith. Further, your challenge to the 'Bush Stole The Election' folks is misplaced, since you won't find many of those people at FR, mostly because the general consensus on this board (and one I agree with) is that Bush did no such thing.

Again, I hope you are well read enough to find the answers yourself.

[Stultis]

You are the one who is embarassing, Eisntein, Hank Reardon, or whatever you call yourself. Your post is a waste of bandwith.

If you really believe this, then your course of action is clear. IGNORE THE THREAD. Your obsessive pissing and moaning about it is merely helping to "bump" the thread "back to the top," and thereby exposing more of your fellow freepers to this alleged "waste of bandwidth."

Now, in confidence that your view is sincere, and we can expect that you will leave the thread to those of us who consider this issue timely and relevant because the 'Rats will clearly try to steal the election again at the slightest opportunity.

Buh-Bye.

[HitmanLV]

Who put you in charge of the thread? I am not pissing and moaning, I am responding to posts that are addressed to me.

As for your observation that the Rats will try to steal the election again, I don't necessarily disagree. What that has to do with the subject matter of the post is unclear.

[Stultis]

Why do you continue bumping this "waste of bandwidth" BTTT?

[Stultis]

Bump!

[Stultis]

BTTT!!

[HitmanLV]

Easy: I am responding to people who are responding to me. It's all a waste of bandwith, I am just doing my part.

[HitmanLV]

Bumparoonie!

[Stultis]

Fine. I didn't review your participation in the thread previous to the message I replied to. I think the subject is potentially relevant in 2004 (if, God forbid, the election is close) for, among others, the reason I stated above, and which others have touched on: that the resolution of Floriduh 2000 failed to preclude (and may even have provided some basis for) similar occurrences in the future.

Or, to put it another way... Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[HitmanLV]

We are of like mind there, friend. I just didn't think the original posed question served much towards that end.

In the broadest sense, it does helps us prepare for contingencies. I don't expect another dynamic like Florida 2000, though, as FL in particular should be a solid win for Dubya.

In any case, Peace be with you and Kudos!

[HankReardon]

I reference, cross-reference, I go too many sources for information. I love picking the brains of the freepies on subjects. You don't like it, that's okay, your problem, not mine.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Thanks for your comments. Concur with your thought on SCOTUS justices.

[SW6906]

Wow. You've been around here long enough that you should know that this kind of thread is exactly what Free Republic is all about

Like others on this thread, I have learned/remembered much about what happened back then to be used as ammunition in the continuing attacks from the left about Florida. This thread gathered the salient points and some of the great FR analysis together in one place instead of the hundreds of HUGE threads from the period, let alone the myriad books that it would cost money and take a long time to read and analyze. This thread HAS been valuable and is FAR from a waste of bandwidth.

IMHO

[BohDaThone]

It's a huge subject, but here's my brief answer (and I've studied it a lot). Longer passage will follow.

Hank Reardon’s question gives me a chance to summarize my study on this question, which has been substantial.

THE ONE PARAGRAPH SUMMARY

1. Florida was excruciatingly close. Both sides have all kinds of “coulda should wouldas” that should all be disregarded.
2. By any reasonable measure of the pre-existing rules for casting and counting ballots, Bush got more legal votes that got into the ballot boxes in Florida.

3. It is quite probable that more people left the voting booths in Florida thinking that they had voted for Gore, but that doesn’t matter.

[SW6906]

BTTT

[SW6906]

BTTT