error COUP WATCH: "In Order To Preserve The Facade of Democracy, It Was Necessary To Destroy It"

By Paul Rosenberg

America is not a democracy. That much was made "perfectly clear" by the Supreme Court when it first vacated the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that allowed hand recounts to go forward. There is no right to vote in the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court vacated the Florida decision on the grounds that it might depend on the right to vote in the Florida Constitution. Thus, the conservative Court majority officially ruled that democracy is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court made a similar point in the Dred Scott decision, when it officially ruled that African-Americans were not citizens: there are no rights in America except those recognized by the Supreme Court. This is a nation of MEN, not laws. Forget high school civics, forget the Declaration of Independence, forget the Constitution, this is raw POWER we're talking about, and whatever five schoolyard bullies say, goes.

But of course, the American people won't stand for that. Jack Nicholson had it right: We can't stand the truth. We need our dictatorship cloaked in the cast of rags of democracy. We need a g-string at the very least. And that's precisely what Antonin Scalia offers us.

Usually, when activist conservative judges take a meat-cleaver to the law, they go no further than destroying the American Constitution, based on a mere few decades of settled law. In Employment Division vs. Smith, in 1990, for example, Scalia hacked away the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment freedom of religion, overturning 47 years of rulings based on Board of Education v. Barnette (which recognized Jehovah's Witnesses's' right to not salute the flag). Scalia pegged his ruling to Minersville School District v. Gobitis, an earlier decision that denied that right, which Barnett overturned in horror once the Court saw the outpouring of religious violence against Jehovah's Witnesses that followed from it. In a forthcoming book on the case, To An Unknown God: Religious Freedom on Trial, Oregon law professor Garret Epps compares Scalia's use of Gobitis as precedent to basing a ruling on Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.

But that's nothing compared to what's just be done.

In this case, the black-robed schoolyard bullies of the Court have overturned so many centuries of Anglo-American common law and so many precedents it's impossible to keep track. The purpose of a judicial stay is to prevent irreparable harm. The classic example is a stay of execution in order to hear new evidence or arguments that may exonerate a prisoner condemned to death. The present case stands all those centuries of common law on their heads--it issues a stay in order to CAUSE irreparable harm.

Justice Stevens made precisely this point in his written dissent (joined by SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER):

"Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm. On the other hand, there is a danger that a stay may cause irreparable harm to the respondents— and, more importantly, the public at large— because of the risk that 'the entry of the stay would be tantamount to a decision on the merits in favor of the applicants'.... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election."

There was no explanation offered for the stay (explanations aren't customary in such cases), but Scalia wrote a concurring opinion responding to Stevens, in which he claimed:

"The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

In plan words, it is the "public acceptance" of Bush's election--the acceptance of the FACADE of democracy--which would be "irreparably harmed," according to Scalia. No Roman Emperor could have said it better.

Of course, Stevens's point still stands--preventing the recount ALREADY casts an even bigger cloud over Bush's supposed election--a cloud so big that it now completely envelopes the Supreme Court as well. By Scalia's own words and deeds, the cloud that had previously hung over the election has been vastly expanded in scope--the exact opposite of what he pretends to want.

Lest there be any doubt that Scalia & co. care nothing for the rule of law, he added the following:

"Another issue in the case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent—dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.— vary from county to county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the Circuit Court, permits. If petitioner is correct that counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent an accurate recount."

While other aspects of the Florida Supreme Court ruling might arguably be challenged as changing Florida law--the only reason the Supreme Court might overturn it, according to its own ruling sending the case back--Florida law itself leaves the standard of determination to the counties, and any change in this--however just, sensible and wise it might be--would certainly be grounds for Bush to appeal the decision. Leaving the law as it is--which is what Florida's Supreme Court did--would clearly not be grounds for appeal. If the Supreme Court bothered with being consistent. But, then, dictators usually don't bother. So why should we, right?

The conservative pseudo-principle of "states' rights" says that Federal courts cannot interfere with state law--except to benefit a conservative in trouble. The ONLY thing that permits Scalia to question the recount procedure is this conservative protection exception. An honest proponent of states' rights would simply note that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, since the Florida Supreme Court had simply followed the law passed by the Florida legislature in this regard.

Bush is arguing that the Florida Legislature should have the last word in everything--except when it lets counties decide the standards for determining voter intent. Then, AND ONLY THEN, the Supreme Court should over-rule the Florida Legislature.

And they accuse GORE of trying to make the rules up as he goes along? They accuse the FLORIDA Supreme Court of trying to make the rules up as they go along? This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. This is the black hole calling the universe closed.

There is, however, one way to look at this action which does not involve tearing up eight or ten centuries of Anglo-American common law. One could argue that the only "irreparable harm" that Scalia & his gang are really worried about is the irreparable harm that THEY would suffer if they let Gore register a majority of votes before overturning his election. Scalia is suffering under the delusion--common among banana republicans across the decades and around the world--that if he & his friends don't steal the election in plain sight, then no one will be the wiser. To them, democracy is nothing more than a game of "peek-a-boo!" If they just use a g-string of democracy to hide their private power, then everyone will just roll over & let them do what they will. This is how the schoolyard bullies on the Supreme Court think.

Forget December 7. From now on, December 9 will be remembered as the day that shall live in infamy for all time. We're no longer secretly pretending to be a democracy. From here on, it's official. The Roman emperors would be so proud! Bring on the lions! Who's first on the menu?

---

Link below to Supreme Court's stay order, concurrence and dissent.

Is the right to vote somehow separate from the right to have one's vote counted? Of course not. The entire Florida episode up to and including the Supreme Court decision to halt the count, operates on the premise that we do not have the right to have our vote counted. No matter that the foundation of this country as penned by Thomas Jefferson say that it is self evident that a government is created by men and derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Can any vote that can reasonably be counted be dismissed without violating this principle of the Declaration of Independence?

Later Abe Lincoln took us into one of the bloodist civil wars in human history and at the dedication of the cemetary on the battlefield of one of the bloodiest battles of that war. His words echo today "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain and that this nation under god shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth"

On Saturday the Supreme Court ruled that this government of the people has perished.

I agree that the US Supreme Court erred in it's 5-4 ruling halting the hand recounts in Florida. I just want to try to explicate why Justices Scalia and Stevens arrived at their (very) different conclusions.

Scalia questions the legality of the 'undervoted' ballots. His argument goes something like this: These ballots aren't necessarily legal. If they are counted and Gore comes out ahead, and they are later determined to be illegal ballots, then Bush is irreparably harmed from the counting action. Therefore, until the legality of the ballots can be determined, the counting should stop.

Stevens doesn't question the legality of the ballots because until Florida law, a ballot is 'legal'if the local canvassing board says it is. Applying the canvassing boards' standards to the 'undervoted' ballots is therefore legal. Gore is irreparably harmed when the recount is stopped.

I agree with Stevens. The presupposition that the 'undervoted' ballots are illegal is legally suspect. (As a side note, it is interesting that the Republicans are arguing that ballots that failed to be counted by a machine are illegal, or at least don't count, whereas absentee applications that were misprinted by machine can be corrected by hand. Of course, the Dems argue the opposite, so no one is really consistent.) There is no reason to declare that a ballot that cannot be read by a machine is invalid. Machines are inherently flawed, but flawed in a way that humans aren't. Machines can't do more than they are explicitly told. Humans are able to say something like "Well, they marked the box with an 'X' instead of filling it in, but that's okay". We can do pattern matches that machines are incapable of doing. Machines are a convienence; usually the margin of victory is outside the margin of error, which is not the case here.

Which leads me to my next point. There is this notion of 'statistical significance': that a difference between two measurements of phenomena is complicated by the fact that when you make a measurement, you always have some degree of error. In this case, when you have a difference of ~200 votes (as of D10) out of 6 million total votes (.0033%), that difference falls within the range of error (in this case by machines, which have at least a 1-2% error rate). The machine count is not sensitive to the difference. If we counted a million times, we would probably get the whole range of counts, from 2000 for Gore to 2000 for Bush (or whatever the range would be).

What we have in Florida is a tie vote, and no one (except for Ralph Nader and Stephen Jay Gould) has really talked about this. There are no provisions in Florida law to deal with a tie vote (like in New Mexico, where you can settle it with a coin flip).

Neither side has handled this situation well. The Democrats sought recounts just in areas where they knew they could pick up enough votes to swing the election to Gore (this is arguably violates the civil rights of those voters in counties where a recount was not requested). The Republicans suspect that they lost Florida, and it is only by the grace of god, Katherine Harris, and the intimidation of minority voters that have enabled them to hold onto their lead. Gov. Bush should have allowed a manual recount to go forth. VP Gore should have demanded a statewide recount from the beginning, and should have requested one in New Mexico as well.

Let's be frank. Bush doesn't want a recount because he's sure he'll lose. The spin is that hand counts are more flawed than machine counts. Even though Bush signed a law saying that manual recounts are preferrable in Texas. Even though a designer of the voting machines in Florida said a manual recount is preferrable in a close election. Even though they are fighting for hand recounts in NM (I think).

On the other hand, the election really is a tie. No amount of counting will resolve that fact. So what do we do? My modest proposal is that the national votes for Bush and Gore cancel each other out (arguably Gore's lead in the national election is a tie as well). The election should go to the third place contestent.

President Ralph Nader.

Short of that, Florida could choose to split its electors, 13 for Bush, 12 for Gore (since Bush is the certified winner). This would swing the election to Gore.

A final note: The real issues are not being discussed in the major media outlets. No one talks about 'ties' or 'minority voter intimidation' or the fact that Gore leads in both the popular and electoral college vote. No one talks about New Mexico. No one talks about how there has only been one statewide recount in Florida, one automatically induced by the slim lead Bush had over Gore. All other counts went on in specific (heavily Democratic)counties. The count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was the first statewide recount, despite what James Baker III says. Had the Bush camp embraced a manual recount and the Gore camp embraced a statewide recount from the beginning, we would know who the next president is.

But I prefer the situation we're in now: exposing the candidates for the bitter, petty men they are while opening a national dialogue on our election process.

I agree that the US Supreme Court erred in it's 5-4 ruling halting the hand recounts in Florida. I just want to try to explicate why Justices Scalia and Stevens arrived at their (very) different conclusions.

Scalia questions the legality of the 'undervoted' ballots. His argument goes something like this: These ballots aren't necessarily legal. If they are counted and Gore comes out ahead, and they are later determined to be illegal ballots, then Bush is irreparably harmed from the counting action. Therefore, until the legality of the ballots can be determined, the counting should stop.

Stevens doesn't question the legality of the ballots because until Florida law, a ballot is 'legal'if the local canvassing board says it is. Applying the canvassing boards' standards to the 'undervoted' ballots is therefore legal. Gore is irreparably harmed when the recount is stopped.

I agree with Stevens. The presupposition that the 'undervoted' ballots are illegal is legally suspect. (As a side note, it is interesting that the Republicans are arguing that ballots that failed to be counted by a machine are illegal, or at least don't count, whereas absentee applications that were misprinted by machine can be corrected by hand. Of course, the Dems argue the opposite, so no one is really consistent.) There is no reason to declare that a ballot that cannot be read by a machine is invalid. Machines are inherently flawed, but flawed in a way that humans aren't. Machines can't do more than they are explicitly told. Humans are able to say something like "Well, they marked the box with an 'X' instead of filling it in, but that's okay". We can do pattern matches that machines are incapable of doing. Machines are a convienence; usually the margin of victory is outside the margin of error, which is not the case here.

Which leads me to my next point. There is this notion of 'statistical significance': that a difference between two measurements of phenomena is complicated by the fact that when you make a measurement, you always have some degree of error. In this case, when you have a difference of ~200 votes (as of D10) out of 6 million total votes (.0033%), that difference falls within the range of error (in this case by machines, which have at least a 1-2% error rate). The machine count is not sensitive to the difference. If we counted a million times, we would probably get the whole range of counts, from 2000 for Gore to 2000 for Bush (or whatever the range would be).

What we have in Florida is a tie vote, and no one (except for Ralph Nader and Stephen Jay Gould) has really talked about this. There are no provisions in Florida law to deal with a tie vote (like in New Mexico, where you can settle it with a coin flip).

Neither side has handled this situation well. The Democrats sought recounts just in areas where they knew they could pick up enough votes to swing the election to Gore (this is arguably violates the civil rights of those voters in counties where a recount was not requested). The Republicans suspect that they lost Florida, and it is only by the grace of god, Katherine Harris, and the intimidation of minority voters that have enabled them to hold onto their lead. Gov. Bush should have allowed a manual recount to go forth. VP Gore should have demanded a statewide recount from the beginning, and should have requested one in New Mexico as well.

Let's be frank. Bush doesn't want a recount because he's sure he'll lose. The spin is that hand counts are more flawed than machine counts. Even though Bush signed a law saying that manual recounts are preferrable in Texas. Even though a designer of the voting machines in Florida said a manual recount is preferrable in a close election. Even though they are fighting for hand recounts in NM (I think).

On the other hand, the election really is a tie. No amount of counting will resolve that fact. So what do we do? My modest proposal is that the national votes for Bush and Gore cancel each other out (arguably Gore's lead in the national election is a tie as well). The election should go to the third place contestent.

President Ralph Nader.

Short of that, Florida could choose to split its electors, 13 for Bush, 12 for Gore (since Bush is the certified winner). This would swing the election to Gore.

A final note: The real issues are not being discussed in the major media outlets. No one talks about 'ties' or 'minority voter intimidation' or the fact that Gore leads in both the popular and electoral college vote. No one talks about New Mexico. No one talks about how there has only been one statewide recount in Florida, one automatically induced by the slim lead Bush had over Gore. All other counts went on in specific (heavily Democratic)counties. The count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was the first statewide recount, despite what James Baker III says. Had the Bush camp embraced a manual recount and the Gore camp embraced a statewide recount from the beginning, we would know who the next president is.

But I prefer the situation we're in now: exposing the candidates for the bitter, petty men they are while opening a national dialogue on our election process.

Where have all of you been for the past month? All of the votes have been counted, recounted and re-recounted. The process of the hand recount and the unstandardized method to conduct it not to mention the subjective nature of the methods being implimented in the various precincts make the entire proposition perposterious. A true and accurate hand recount is no longer possible at this point, that is if it ever was possible to begin with. These ballets have been handled and rehandled far too many times and the subjective method of determination of voter intent has transformed this process from vote counting to vote casting. Gore's team of gangsters lead by skinhead Daley are determined to steal the election as though were a local Chicago affair.

Let's decompose your argument.

(1) "All of the votes have been counted, recounted and re-recounted."

Not exactly. The first two counts are mandatory: the first to determine who the winner was, and the second was automatically triggered because of the closeness of the vote.

And the crucial argument is that there are a large number of votes that were NOT counted (in disproportionately minority areas). Those are the ballots at issue here. So your statement is wrong. These votes have NEVER been counted because they had some error on them that caused the computer to fail to register their vote.

(2) "The process of the hand recount and the unstandardized method to conduct it not to mention the subjective nature of the methods being implimented in the various precincts make the entire proposition perposterious."

There are standards: those standards are determined by each local canvassing board. This makes the statewide count 'unstandardized'. There are two problems with your argument. First, legally, the power to determine the standard rests with each local canvassing board. It sucks, but that's the current law. Second, since the power does rest with each local board, the method of counting the ballots is already 'unstandardized'. To say that a hand recount is illegal because each local board makes the determination as to what counts means that the first and second counts (the certified results that Bush wants to keep) are illegal as well.

(3) "These ballets [sic] have been handled and rehandled far too many times and the subjective method of determination of voter intent has transformed this process from vote counting to vote casting."

I'd like to know how *you* know that the ballots are now unreadable. I've heard this argument, but I'd like to see it substantiated.

Second, there is always some degree of subjectivity when counting votes. This even happens with machines. The degree of scrutinty on the ballot counters is quite high. I have confidence in the process. Why don't you?

(4) "Gore's team of gangsters lead by skinhead Daley are determined to steal the election as though were a local Chicago affair."

This is a simple ad-hominem, and it is quite unnecessary. If we're to have an intelligent discussion, we have to refrain from these type of arguments.

"But I prefer the situation we're in now: exposing the candidates for the bitter, petty men they are while opening a national dialogue on our election process."

I couldn't disagree with you more. Gore has proved himself above the fray countless times since November 7, and has at least twice publicly offered to count the whole state by hand, which Bush rejected until he could use that ruse to stop any handcounts from occurring.

To vapidly assert now as all Nader supporters did before the election that there's no difference between Gore and Bush is preposterous in the wake of what the Supreme Court just did. IF you need any further proof that there are HUGE differences between the GOP and the Democrats, merely take a whiff of Scalia's logic and serve it up to the public, who will be rightly repulsed.

Yet Nader stupidly insisted that the Supreme Court nominations were not important in this election, and that there were no differences between the candidates.

We see now only too painfully just how crucial the U.S. Supreme Court is, and what will happen to it now that it's going to usher Bush through the back door of the Oval Office.

The difference between Bush and Gore? Gore would have the will of the people count, Bush would not. Bush and his right-wing cronies in the Court are dismantling democracy itself, while Nader supporters are either suffused with guilt, glee, anger, or, as in your case, plain denial.

If you really need an illustration of "bitter, petty men," and you're ready to let go of your illustions about Nader, I suggest you simply look to the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court that just took down our democracy.

Thanks for the decomposition Matt.

Here is my take on your opinion.

"(1) "All of the votes have been counted, recounted and re-recounted."

Not exactly. The first two counts are mandatory: the first to determine who the winner was, and the second was automatically triggered because of the closeness of the vote.

And the crucial argument is that there are a large number of votes that were NOT counted (in disproportionately minority areas). Those are the ballots at issue here. So your statement is wrong. These votes have NEVER been counted because they had some error on them that caused the computer to fail to register their vote. "


(r) If they know how many votes were not counted then doesn't that mean they have been counted already?


"(2) "The process of the hand recount and the unstandardized method to conduct it not to mention the subjective nature of the methods being implimented in the various precincts make the entire proposition perposterious."

There are standards: those standards are determined by each local canvassing board. This makes the statewide count 'unstandardized'. There are two problems with your argument. First, legally, the power to determine the standard rests with each local canvassing board. It sucks, but that's the current law. Second, since the power does rest with each local board, the method of counting the ballots is already 'unstandardized'. To say that a hand recount is illegal because each local board makes the determination as to what counts means that the first and second counts (the certified results that Bush wants to keep) are illegal as well. "

(r) I never insinuated that two wrongs equal one right. But to change the rules after the game has been played is no good either.

"(3) "These ballets [sic] have been handled and rehandled far too many times and the subjective method of determination of voter intent has transformed this process from vote counting to vote casting."

I'd like to know how *you* know that the ballots are now unreadable. I've heard this argument, but I'd like to see it substantiated. "


(r) I'd like to know how *you* know they are readable or readable to a point that will reflect an anonymous faceless voters intent on Nov 7 by people electing to allow indentations to qualify as a vote upon visual inspection at the discreation of a partisian group of inspectors. You equally can not substantiate your claim.



"(4) "Gore's team of gangsters lead by skinhead Daley are determined to steal the election as though were a local Chicago affair."

This is a simple ad-hominem, and it is quite unnecessary. If we're to have an intelligent discussion, we have to refrain from these type of arguments."

(r) If you are someone who reveres freedom of expression and free speech then why do you attempt to censor me here?

As unfair and illegitmate you may believe the Bush position is, the position of Al Gore is equally unfair and illigitmate.

Daley expects the public to accept a "stacked deck" and insults our intelligence by expecting us to accept his proposition. As I mentioned, two wrongs do not equal one right. But Daley's (and the Gore team) remedy although they use the emotionally charged language of "fairness", "accurate", "disenfranchised" of which anyone with a sense of decency would not want to deny anyone else, is intended only to make certain that Al Gore emerges victorious.

Daley proposes to us what is tantamount to a political game of three card monte. The dealer wins everytime. This is not about determining the will of the people, this is about fulfilling the unabashed ambition of Al Gore at any cost. The people are net even a consideration in this case they are merely an convienient excuse for persisting in his course of action. Al Gore, Daley, Warren Christopher, et al are liars. Jesse Jacksons involvement in all this is less than honorable as well. His attempt to turn this into a racial issue and creating even further division within this country is for the sake of Al Gore is an abomination and an abuse of what he represents to Black Americans.

Thanks for your response DimpledChad. Here's my response.

(1)"(r) If they know how many votes were not counted then doesn't that mean they have been counted already?"

Well, they know the number of uncounted votes, but those votes have not been allocated to any candidate. The point is that these votes failed to be read by a machine and therefore didn't go to either candidate. By 'counting' I mean that the vote has been allocated to a presidential candidate.

(2)"(r) I never insinuated that two wrongs equal one right. But to change the rules after the game has been played is no good either."

But that's the point I was trying to make! The rules of local control were already in place. To go back now and apply a uniform standard is 'changing the rules'. In order to prevent an Equal Protection violation, ALL the ballots in Florida would have to be counted in the same way (a possible rememdy that the Supreme Court might offer).

I agree that a uniform standard should apply across Florida and across the country. However, my point was that to argue that a manual recount violates the Equal Protection Act more than the machine count is absurd. Each country counted differently anyway.

(3)"(r) I'd like to know how *you* know they are readable or readable to a point that will reflect an anonymous faceless voters intent on Nov 7 by people electing to allow indentations to qualify as a vote upon visual inspection at the discreation of a partisian group of inspectors. You equally can not substantiate your claim. "

Excellent point. However, I never said that they WEREN'T made illegible (I'm splitting hairs, but bear with me). I don't think either of us can resolve this problem. This is something that researchers need to get to the bottom of. ("How many handlings does it take to change a ballot?")

(4)"(r) If you are someone who reveres freedom of expression and free speech then why do you attempt to censor me here?"

I love and revere free speech. I will fight to the death for your right to call Bill Daley a skinhead. My point was that in a productive and healthy debate such as this, we can leave aside remarks that attack someone's character in a way that falls outside of the boundaries of the debate. It makes the arguments clearer and less rancorous. You don't have to adhear to this -- it was merely a suggestion on my part. I will, however, try to keep remarks about the various parties's characters to myself.

Please don't say I was trying to censor you.

(5) "As unfair and illegitmate you may believe the Bush position is, the position of Al Gore is equally unfair and illigitmate."

I believe the original Al Gore position, "count only the disputed votes in certain counties", was illegal and unfair. This whole process stinks with partisanship from top to bottom. No one comes out looking like a winner from this. I do, however, believe that the Bush position is slightly less tenable, since he's requesting that votes NOT be counted. Bush should have accepted Gore's offer to do a statewide recount of all the ballots.

Bush's position is such that he doesn't want Gore to excersize his legal right to dispute the election. Gore's position is to count until the votes come out his way. Bush doesn't have to take Gore's position, since the results already came out his way. In short, were the situation reversed, Gore would be doing what Bush is doing and vice versa.

I believe that the only remedy is to have a statewide recount: first by machine, after which those that failed the machine test will be subjected to a manual count adhering to a strict, statewide standard. Since the machines have shown themselves to be insensitive to the differnce between the candidates, we have to use a different standard than a machine count.

Can we agree on that?

Thaxter, your point is well taken.

I'll be honest here. I really dislike Al Gore. I think he's a hardcore politician with no spine, a lying streak a mile wide, and a true inability to inspire people and foster a consensus. I won't address the mistakes of his administration with Clinton.

I really HATE GW Bush. I think he's a front, a corporate shill with the right name. A man with little-to-no experience to match his little-to-no intelligence. In an ideal world, Gore would have mopped the floor with Bush, and Nader supporters could have avoided feeling like spoilers.

Not that I feel like a spoiler, being a Nader voter.

And I feel that Gore is (at least partially) in the right here.

However, I don't believe that Gore has shown himself to be above the fray. Setting aside the character assasins he sent against Nader in the form of Jesse Jackson, Gloria Steinhem, et al., before the election, he and his legal team have consistently tried to do the minimal amount of effort to try to win the election. True, Gore did offer to recount Florida. To be consistent, he should have offered to recount New Mexico as well. And although he did offer to recount Florida, that was never part of his lawsuit. He offers one thing, but does not back it up. Had Gore sued to get the entire state counted, while pointing out that Bush was afraid of the will of the people, he would have demolished Bush in court a long time ago. No Equal Protection violation, no arguments for Bush.

On the Supreme Court, I think that the fact that the president appoints the justices is very important. But more importantly is that the Senate approves them (I think it's just the Senate, correct me if I'm wrong). Whoever wins must appoint justices that are moderate in order for them to pass through the Senate. We will not get another Scalia if Bush wins, and we will not get another Stevens if Gore wins. I think that the Democrats's method of taking out the Supreme Court boogieman every election gets a little tiring. And disingenous, especially since Scalia and Thomas were approved under Democratically controlled Congresses.

What is fascinating to me, in a horrible-car-wreck way, is how the hard-core conservatives -- Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist --were all prior to this brohaha proceeding along in giving back more power to the states; arguing against government intervention. Now a conservative has to rely on the Court to prevent his loss, and the coservatives in the court decide that they need to intervene in a state issue. One wonders if the situation were reversed, would the conservatives intervene on behalf of Gore?

One final point. I would insist that the positions occupied by each candidate are not principled stands. Were the situation reversed, Gore would be in Bush's shoes, and vice versa. Like I said, I believe Gore is on the right side of this problem; however, it appears to me that he has no choice. He wants to win, so he'll take the position that just happens to be the "just" position. In addition, I think that very few people are actually adopting their positions based on principle. It's who you voted for. I like to think that if Bush were losing by 200 votes I would still demand a recount. Who knows? Bush supporters, if Bush were losing by 200 votes, would you demand a recount? If yes, then you have to rethink your position. Gore supporters, would you be asking to stop the recount in Florida if Gore were only ahead by 200 votes? If yes, then you have to rethink your position. If you're just choosing your position based on which way will best get your candidate elected, that seems kind of odious to me...

"I believe that the only remedy is to have a statewide recount: first by machine, after which those that failed the machine test will be subjected to a manual count adhering to a strict, statewide standard. Since the machines have shown themselves to be insensitive to the differnce between the candidates, we have to use a different standard than a machine count.

Can we agree on that?"


Yes we can.... I'll hang my chad on that.

i am not even going to respect your opinion on this issue of recount after recount after recount. in the new york times-the most liberal magazine in America, the votes have been RECOUNTED numerous times, and still the victor is George W.
that brings me to, what would we do now if little albert jr. was in office now with this tragedy happening? he wanted to CUT our MILITARY for Heaven's sakes. who would he have in office? Bill Clinton??? who failed to take care of Bin Laden when we should have. his only intent to even try was probably to try to get himself away from the Lewinskey scandal.
i know this is harsh, and i am not being Christian like, and i am sorry, but i fear the nation having algore as a President. Jesus loves you.
beckett