In a victory for Republicans hoping to win by getting Ralph Nader on as many ballots as possible, in lieu of confidence that their man is good enough to win on his own, the Florida Supreme Court has just ruled that Nader can be added to the ballot because the Florida Legislature’s law was not clear enough to determine the matter one way or another. So they decided to rule in favor of inclusion on the ballot.
That’s nice. But wouldn’t that seem to go against the Republican’s argument from 2000 that the Florida Supremes were all Democratic activist judges, and that a lack of clarity in the law concerning ballot counting meant that the law should be ignored in favor of not counting every ballot?
Apparently judiciaries are only biased “activists” when they rule against what Republicans want.
Hypocrisy in the Republican party?! Say it ain’t so!
One little problem with your post. Current law vague so no law was broken. In 2000, Florida court was trying to change elections law after an election.
Wrong. But please feel free to demonstrate to us which law you are suggesting they were trying to change.
One little problem with your post. Current law vague so no law was broken. In 2000, Florida court was trying to change elections law after an election. Gore sued three Democrat counties, not the entire state, and the three Democrat counties did not give him enough votes. He should have asked for a state count but he didn’t. No voter
Again, still waiting for you to demonstrate to us which law you are suggesting they were trying to change.
The problem, Paul, is you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Here’s a hint…if you heard it on Rush, it’s a lie.
Legal action was taken by constituencies of the counties themselves. Gore JOINED the suits after they were already filed in courts.
There was an automatic recount that showed wildly different vote counts. The butterfly ballots and voter intimidation claims among other things forced certain counties to ask for manual recounts. The state courts granted them. Since the counties varied on how votes were cast, naturally the standards varied from county to county. Makes sense, unless you were George W. Bush. HE filed a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court? Why? Apparantly he could see the future and somehow knew for some reason that a manual recount would irreperably harm him and only him.
Maybe if Gore had a cousin that worked for Fox News, or his Florida re-election chair were in charge of the elections in Florida or if Gore’s Brother were the Governor, we would have had a more fair and balanced outcome.
Let’s not forget the voter rolls purge, a purge that was against the law. Remember if your name was "similar" (in some cases meaning that your last name began with the same letter) to that of a felon (regardless of whether the voter had his rights restored) your name was purged. Irony of ironies: Katherine Harris was on two distinct voter lists and her name was never purged.
> Since the counties varied on how votes were cast, naturally the standards varied from county to county.
Jaime, sweetheart, every thing you said is true and the above statement would be changing election law (how to count them) after an election took place.