Posted on 08/24/2020 12:35:51 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
President Donald Trump's lawyers are trying to revive the Supreme Court decision that awarded George W. Bush the presidency in 2000 to fight mail-in voting practices for the upcoming presidential election.
The 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore ended a 36-day ordeal after the Florida results were too close to call. The dispute featured battalions of lawyers that descended on the state, challenged ballots with "hanging chads," and multiple recounts under the glare of national television. Although the case still resonates politically, haunting close elections, its legal principle has long been regarded as a proverbial ticket good for one ride only. The Supreme Court itself has not cited the case in any ruling since then.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Bush v. Gore X 50 this time around.
One thing’s for sure...if this thing reaches SCOTUS again they’ll rule in favor of the fraudsters.
Yup. They OWN John Roberts. OWN him.
You don't "revive" a court ruling. You cite it. It either helps your argument or it doesn't. "Revive" is a stupid word to use.
The decision was was 7-2, not 5-4. The vote on the exact remedy was 5-4, but seven justices agreed that the recounts were unconstitutional.
The decision did not give the Presidency to Bush. Bush won because the vote was in his favor. When the recount was completed unofficially it still came out in favor of Bush.
No. Robert’s judicial philosophy has led to decisions that many of us don’t like. But he gets there because he follows his reasoning.
Correct. It was 7-2
ping
“No. Robert’s judicial philosophy has led to decisions that many of us don’t like. But he gets there because he follows his reasoning.”
Agreed. One doesn’t need a conspiracy to explain why Roberts votes the way he does.
I prefer Mark Levin’s take on Roberts.
Rudderless. Absolutely rudderless.
Perhaps he should just follow the law...
Zero out of three is not too bad for CNN I suppose. Usually, CNN gets -1000 out of 3.
Judges don't always agree on what the law means. That's why there is more than one. You will note that it hasn't been a history of 8-1 votes.
That wasn't the issue. Health care is not a tax, obviously. Nobody said it was. But there was a penalty for not having coverage. The penalty was a question on your 1040 and collected by the IRS with the rest of your income taxes. If you had coverage you got a credit. If you didn't, you had to pay. Sure sounds like a standard tax provision.
Also do not forget gorsuch(closet homo). Trying to be cute. Wants to be swinger like kennedy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.