Posted on 09/09/2001 1:26:20 PM PDT by Bryan
Did the recount decision in Bush vs. Gore hurt the Supreme Court's credibility?
Yes 56%
No 42%
Undecided 2%
2210 responses
When we first started this thread this afternoon, the numbers looked like this:
Yes 75%
No 23%
Undecided 2%
775 responses
Their 52-point lead has shriveled to a mere 14 points. Let's keep up the outstanding Freeping! But remember, this is a left-wing news media organization and they will shamelessly delete any vote that traces back to Free Republic. Therefore I am not posting a link. Please cut and paste the following URL address, then scroll down to the bottom of the page and VOTE!
2375 responses
No. The ruling was a correct interpretation of the law. 43%
Yes. The court's decision was obviously politically motivated. 56%
I'm undecided. 2%
Survey results tallied every 60 seconds. Live Votes reflect respondents' views and
The only way Gore could have won, is if the Florida Supreme court had been given back the jurisdiction by the Federal court. Then the Florida court would have had to rule for Bush. Their own recounts show that.
The recounts showed that only if the votes were counted the way Bush asked, could Gore have had a shot at winning. Had Gore prevailed in every court it would have still been President Bush.
The problem is the Media could not accept that. They refuse to believe that Gore was a bad candidate and that Bill Clinton harmed his sides race.
Everything except the scandals and Gore's personality said Gore should win. It is hard for the incumbant party to lose in boom times. Both the media and the Democrats cannot accept the truth of that statement.
I for one am glad.
There is one rule a winner never violates. For if a winner violates this rule, he ceases to be a winner. That rule is NEVER EVER LIE TO YOURSELF. Both the media and Gore do that a lot.
That is the prime difference between Gore and the Clintons. The Clintons lie to everyone but themselves. Gore and the media only lie to themselves. The more they do it the easier it will become to beat them.
SEVEN TO TWO (7 to 2) on the critically important Equal Portection Issue is not a "razor thin" or "5 to 4" decision. The 5 to 4 portion was a minor procedural, not at substantive, difference, only. Justices Souter and Breyer joined the other 5 majority Justices on the issue of Florida's Supreme Court's having run roughshod over the 14th Amednment's Equal Protection Clasue!
The key and only major Cosntituional issue addressed by the Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court's vote count deciosn was a blatant violation of the sacrted Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 5 to 4 portion of the decions was only a procedural and non-substatnive non-Constituional and pragmatic difference of opinion as to whether there remained enough time for Florida to complete a count even if the extraordianry hooles and horrendous flaws in theFlorida Supreme Court's own sharply divided opinion couls be remedied before the December 12th midnight deadline prescribed in the Constitution.
That Constitutional deadline (selection fo Electors "six days before the Electors meet") was a mere two hours after the U.S. Suipreme Court's own decion was rendered, at 10 p.m. on December 12, 2000; so, obviously, addressing such substantive flaws as were pointed out by the SEVEN (7) concurring justices on the Equal Protection Issue in the 14ht Amendment, and conducting such a full, fair and uniform-standard count was clearly impossible.
I must refer the Newsweek reporter to the thorough and paisntaking job of journalism and historic reporting in the New York Times bestseller by Washington Times reprter Bill Sammon:
"At Any Price: How Al Gore Tried to steal teh Election."
Reporter Kaplan is now attempting to hijack both the Law and our History with Leftist Lies, propaganda, and distortions disguised as "reporting."
One must wonder what his true agenda is...
SEVEN TO TWO (7 to 2) on the critically important Equal Portection Issue is not a "razor thin" or "5 to 4" decision. The 5 to 4 portion was a minor procedural, not at substantive, difference, only. Justices Souter and Breyer joined the other 5 majority Justices on the issue of Florida's Supreme Court's having run roughshod over the 14th Amednment's Equal Protection Clasue!
The key and only major Cosntituional issue addressed by the Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court's vote count deciosn was a blatant violation of the sacrted Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 5 to 4 portion of the decions was only a procedural and non-substatnive non-Constituional and pragmatic difference of opinion as to whether there remained enough time for Florida to complete a count even if the extraordianry hooles and horrendous flaws in theFlorida Supreme Court's own sharply divided opinion couls be remedied before the December 12th midnight deadline prescribed in the Constitution.
That Constitutional deadline (selection fo Electors "six days before the Electors meet") was a mere two hours after the U.S. Suipreme Court's own decion was rendered, at 10 p.m. on December 12, 2000; so, obviously, addressing such substantive flaws as were pointed out by the SEVEN (7) concurring justices on the Equal Protection Issue in the 14ht Amendment, and conducting such a full, fair and uniform-standard count was clearly impossible.
I must refer the Newsweek reporter to the thorough and paisntaking job of journalism and historic reporting in the New York Times bestseller by Washington Times reprter Bill Sammon:
"At Any Price: How Al Gore Tried to steal teh Election."
Reporter Kaplan is now attempting to hijack both the Law and our History with Leftist Lies, propaganda, and distortions disguised as "reporting."
One must wonder what his true agenda is...
SEVEN TO TWO (7 to 2) on the critically important Equal Portection Issue is not a "razor thin" or "5 to 4" decision. The 5 to 4 portion was a minor procedural, not at substantive, difference, only. Justices Souter and Breyer joined the other 5 majority Justices on the issue of Florida's Supreme Court's having run roughshod over the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause!
The key and only major Cosntituional issue addressed by the Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court's vote count decision was a blatant violation of the sacred Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 5 to 4 portion of the decions was only a procedural and non-substatnive non-Constitutional and pragmatic difference of opinion as to whether there remained enough time for Florida to complete a count even if the extraordianry holes and horrendous flaws in the Florida Supreme Court's own sharply divided opinion could be remedied before the December 12th midnight deadline prescribed in the Constitution.
That Constitutional deadline (selection fo Electors "six days before the Electors meet") was a mere two hours after the U.S. Suipreme Court's own decion was rendered, at 10 p.m. on December 12, 2000; so, obviously, addressing such substantive flaws as were pointed out by the SEVEN (7) concurring justices on the Equal Protection Issue in the 14ht Amendment, and conducting such a full, fair and uniform-standard count was clearly impossible.
I must refer the Newsweek reporter to the thorough and painstaking job of journalism and historic reporting in the New York Times bestseller by Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon:
"At Any Price: How Al Gore Tried to steal teh Election."
Reporter Kaplan is now attempting to hijack both the Law and our History with Leftist Lies, propaganda, and distortions disguised as "reporting."
One must wonder what his true agenda is...
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.