Charlie Rose did not challenge Scalia's false claim that "the press unanimously" agreed that Bush won Florida in 2000
SUMMARY: On his PBS program, Charlie Rose did not challenge Antonin Scalia's false assertion that "the press unanimously" found that, in Rose's words, George W. Bush "won that election in Florida." In fact, according to The Washington Post, data from a study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center found that under several different criteria for assessing a voter's intent, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush after a statewide recount of all ballots "that were initially rejected by voting machines."
On the June 20 broadcast of PBS' Charlie Rose, host Charlie Rose did not challenge U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's false assertion that "the press unanimously" found that, in Rose's words, then-Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush "won that election in Florida." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to The Washington Post, data from a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) -- organized by a consortium that included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, the Tribune Co. (owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel), and The Wall Street Journal -- show that under several different criteria for assessing a voter's intent, former Vice President Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush after a statewide recount of all ballots "that were initially rejected by voting machines."
Discussing the court's decision to stop the recount, which effectively decided the election in favor of Bush, Scalia and Rose had the following exchange:
SCALIA: As it turned out, the decision didn't overturn -- as you know, the press ran a study of what would have happened if the hanging chads, dimpled chads and all that stuff had been counted the way Mr. Gore wanted them counted --
ROSE: Some say we'll never know who won that election in Florida.
SCALIA: Well, the press unanimously -- and there were a number of different organizations involved -- they unanimously came to that conclusion.
In fact, according to the Post -- one of NORC's clients for the study -- the NORC data show that in a statewide recount, Gore would likely have emerged the winner under four criteria for determining a voter's intent. The Post reported that researchers in the study "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines. This included those that contained no discernible vote for president, known as 'undervotes,' and those that registered votes for more than one candidate, the 'overvotes.' " The study then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida." The Post reported that the NORC data show:
- When the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes.
- "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," Gore won Florida by 107 votes.
- Using a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- Gore won by 115 votes.
- Replicating "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.
Moreover, by stating "[s]even-two" in response to Scalia's claim that the Bush v. Gore decision "was not close," Rose falsely suggested that the court voted 7-2 against allowing a recount to go forward. In fact, four of the nine justices dissented from the majority decision ending the recount, meaning that the decision was actually 5-4. Scalia responded to Rose's assertion by stating, "It was seven to two on the principal issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation. It wasn't close." In fact, while two of the dissenting justices -- David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- agreed that the procedures for the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause, their position was not that the recount should be halted, but that Florida should be allowed to conduct a recount under different procedures. So, contrary to Scalia and Rose's suggestion, four justices -- not two -- took the position that a recount should go forward.
From the June 20 broadcast of PBS' Charlie Rose:
SCALIA: See, that is the great attraction of the other philosophy. The "living Constitution" judge is a happy fella.
ROSE: Let me just go one more --
SCALIA: You always reach a result you like. And I don't, I truly don't.
ROSE: Now, some would even take that to Gore versus Bush, as you know. And they would say that, "Boy, you never like throwing things back to state courts." You believe that state courts ought to be respected.
SCALIA: No, I mean, well --
ROSE: What?
SCALIA: This is the notion that those who oppose activist judges oppose judges doing actively what they're supposed to do. That is not my position.
ROSE: Did any of that violate principles of yours, that decision?
SCALIA: No.
ROSE: None at all?
SCALIA: Not at all.
ROSE: Across the board?
SCALIA: Across the board.
ROSE: Really?
SCALIA: I would have preferred to base the decision, because it was my judgment that it was much clearer, on the alternate ground that the chief justice's opinion suggested, but which did not get five votes. It got four.
ROSE: As you know --
SCALIA: The decision was not close. I mean, you know --
ROSE: Seven-two.
SCALIA: It was seven to two on the principal issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation. It wasn't close. And I don't know what would one have expected the court to do?
ROSE: Let the recount continue is what they would have wanted them to do, I guess.
SCALIA: Yeah, but --
ROSE: The court would have said, let's not decide this right now, let them -- even though the -- Gore initiated the process.
SCALIA: What if that -- what if it was unconstitutional to have that recount? You're going to let it continue and come to a conclusion, and then overturn it? Is that better?
ROSE: What would have been the danger of that?
SCALIA: The danger of that is that it -- in appearances, it's even worse for the court.
ROSE: Is it really? Because some would argue you never realize what the decision might have been or what the numbers might have shown you, and therefore, it looked like -- and that's the reason it became so controversial -- you were stopping the voting, as you know.
SCALIA: No, I don't think so. The reason to stop it sooner -- jeez, I really don't want to rehash it.
ROSE: I know you don't. But I just wanted -- but tell me --
SCALIA: The last thing I'm going to say about it. The reason to stop it sooner was not, "Ooh, we're worried that it's going to come out the wrong way."
ROSE: But are --
SCALIA: The reason to stop it sooner was that the country -- you forget what was going on at the time. We were the laughingstock of the world. The world's greatest democracy that couldn't conduct an election. We didn't know who our next president was going to be. The lengthy transition that has become standard when you change from one president to another could not begin because you didn't know who the new president was going to be. It was becoming a very serious problem.
ROSE: So, therefore --
SCALIA: And to say --
ROSE: -- it was the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court to --
SCALIA: No, but the issue before the United States Supreme Court is having decided the case, having decided this is unconstitutional, should we nonetheless let the election go on, or is it time to, you know, to cut it off and let's get -- let's move on?
ROSE: Now --
SCALIA: As it turned out, the decision didn't overturn -- as you know, the press ran a study of what would have happened if the hanging chads, dimpled chads and all that stuff had been counted the way Mr. Gore wanted them counted --
ROSE: Some say we'll never know who won that election in Florida.
SCALIA: Well, the press unanimously -- and there were a number of different organizations involved -- they unanimously came to that conclusion.
If you'll notice, these cretins are adopting the same attitude toward the Iraq War as they have toward the 2000 election. When confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the WMD intelligence was cherry picked, and that we're really there for oil.... their response is "It's in the past; get over it".
A$$holes.
or is it time to, you know, to cut it off and let's get -- let's move on?
Cut what off? Our last thread of a connection to the consitution?
Move on from what? The rule of law?
I still want to know what he and Cheney talked about on their little hunting trip.
It's always the same thing. Much as with slavery, driving the Indians off of the land etc. Deny for a while and then say its all in the past.
A liar on the Supreme Court...Anita Hill told the truth too!
More dishonesty by MM.
The study that MM cites looked at "uncertified ballots," not ALL ballots. The study had no way of concluding that "Gore would have won" if it did not entail an entire recount of ALL ballots.
Nice try, MM. But a look at the truth exposes your dishonesty.
The study that MM cites looked at "uncertified ballots," not ALL ballots. The study had no way of concluding that "Gore would have won" if it did not entail an entire recount of ALL ballots.
Nice try, MM. But a look at the truth exposes your dishonesty. - shoes
Really? Cause in the above story they clearly states -
"..show that under several different criteria for assessing a voter's intent, former Vice President Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush after a statewide recount of all ballots "that were initially rejected by voting machines."
Was that intentional dishonesty, or a problem with comprehension?
Nice bait and switch MM...
From NORC's website on the Florida Ballot Project:
"The goal of the project is not to declare a “winner,” but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida. The results of this assessment will help state legislatures, other decision-makers, and developers of ballot systems to work toward more reliable ballot systems in the future. The data archive containing the results of NORC’s work will be available for use by the news organizations, and by sponsoring the public soon thereafter."
It is the WASHINGTON POST'S assertion that Gore won, not NORC's.
Florida Ballot Project
The lack of honesty is yours.
You left out exactly why there were uncertified:
From the Ballots Project link: "uncertified because they failed to register a “valid” vote for President."
MMFA: "all ballots 'that were initially rejected by voting machines.'"
MMFA: "all ballots 'that were initially rejected by voting machines.'" "
I can't believe we STILL have to go through this! An "invalid" vote to a voting machine does NOT mean the vote is unvalid under Florida law. Just for ONE example: if the voter did not mark the machine countable field but DID write in a candidate's name then the machine would reject it for "no vote found." But under Florida voting laws (yes, I did read them) - if the voters intent can be determined clealy then the vote must be counted. Anyone reading such a voting card would easily and clearly be able to dtermine the voter's intent and the vote would be VALID.
That's just ONE example...there are quite a few others. Isn't, or wasn't, there a web site the showed examples of some of the different ones? I seem to remember there being such a web site.
it all moved beyond who requested what in the recounts. either candidate could have asked for recounts in any county within three days of the election. in the end the florida supreme court ordered a recount of all undervotes in the state. the national supreme court based it's decision on an 14th amendment equal opportunity argument. they accepted the argument that a bush voter might have his vote "diluted" by a vote for gore being "unfairly" accepted, so they threw out all the undervotes. but as you point out, state law allowed for hand inspection of ballots. the national court could have set a standard, and allowed judges to count the votes. if they were so interested in the intent of the voter and the "equal protection" of all of them, as they claimed they supposedly were, they would have set aside the argument about dates and said let's see who the people of florida voted for. it would not have taken that long to do all the undervotes.
http://home.pacbell.net/jmax7/BushvGore2000.htm
The study that MM cites looked at "uncertified ballots," not ALL ballots.
The uncertified ballots were the ones that didn't count. When they were counted manually, by several different standards, Gore won.
Those "ALL" ballots were not in question. By the same logic, I suppose I could say that the earth might have been flat at some time-- and thus flat earth deniers are liars-- because not all historical eras have been examined as to witnesses. But so far, no one has questioned those others-- or had a reason to.
It's also quite possible that Bush might have actually lost votes in a full recount, among those that went into the machines successfully.
We were the laughingstock of the world.
Your annointing of Bush really changed that opinion, didn't it Mr. Scalia?
So you undermine our constitution and democracy by making law for one man just because someone across an ocean might be laughing at us?
The scenarios that ended with a Gore victory were all "hypothetical" scenarios. Using the standards that most election officials said they would have used would have still resulted in a Bush victory.
Also, according to a CNN report - "In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Your own article states that if the recount had used the Palm Beach County standard the election would have gone to Gore. Also, if the overvotes (see the article for definition) had been counted, that would have pushed the election to Gore. The article also concedes that there was a "statistically significant relationship" between the party affiliation of the investigator and his/her interpretations of the ballots.
The point of the MMFA piece is that Scalia referred to unanimity that didn't actually exist, and your link supports MMFA.
As I said above, the only standards that resulted in a Gore victory were hypothetical. The Palm Beach County standard was never authorized to be used statewide.
In my view, MMFA is mixing together actual standards with hypothetical standards to reach their conclusions.
So, by that parsing of definitions, you agree with Scalia that the press was unanimous? The exceptions that have been presented aren't valid?
I believe that it was unanimously concluded that Bush would have won Florida under the likely standards that would have been used to count the votes.
I believe that it was unanimously concluded that Bush would have won Florida under the likely standards that would have been used to count the votes.
Only those likely standards that would have counted as few uncertified ballots as possible!
The more that were counted, the more Gore won.
Besides, there was no uniformity. Scalia lied-- as he does all the time, about history, such as trying to claim that the "militia" clause in the 2nd Amendment is meaningless and that it actually supports an individual right to bear arms.
Yeah, an individual right to join a militia!.
That's a lie. Under the standard where all three reviewers agreed on a ballot, Bush won by 219 votes.
quote
SCALIA: The reason to stop it sooner was that the country -- you forget what was going on at the time. We were the laughingstock of the world. The world's greatest democracy that couldn't conduct an election. We didn't know who our next president was going to be. The lengthy transition that has become standard when you change from one president to another could not begin because you didn't know who the new president was going to be. It was becoming a very serious problem.
I see the problem here. The US was not the laughingstock of the world at the time. It was a serious problem and the citizen's were arduously solving the recount issue. Then the Florida attorney General , Kathryn Harris, interfered with the process thereby showing the world we don't know how to solve difficulties we face. Scalia is dead wrong and a republican hack.
"...the citizen's were arduously solving the recount issue."
That's exactly right. Floridians have the absolute exclusive right to determine Florida's Electoral Ballot in a presidential election: no person whatsoever outside of Florida has any right to interfere... not any Justice of the Supreme Court, or anyone at the Department of Justice or anyone in the Federal Government at all: Floridians decide Florida's Electoral ballot: it's the same in any State: it's an exclusive inviolable right.
However screwed up was the way that Florida was attempting to count it's popular vote, it was Florida's problem and nobody else's... there were deadlines to be met to determine and Certify that count: most of them were Florida's own deadlines though: the single Constitutional deadline was that Florida present it's Certified Electoral Vote to the House of Representatives, at the time those Certificates shall be opened, and those Votes counted: this is all Constitutional: had Florida not met that "drop dead" deadline, it would only have meant that Florida had failed to cast its Electoral Vote... that's all... and it would have been Florida's fault, and Florida's alone: even under that awful circumstance (which never happened and certainly wouldn't have), it was still nobody's business except Floridians. Why would that circumstance (of Florida failing to deliver its Certified Electoral Ballot to the U.S. House of Representatives on time) have never happened? Because Florida's State Legislature stood ready, right up until the "drop dead" deadline, to immediately convene a special session, and immediately vote among themselves to determine that Electoral Ballot (all in swift time: in 24 to 48 hours time)... they'd have reached a decision and had that decision Certified: that would have been Legal, it would have been Constitutional, it would have made perfect sense, and above all, it would have been Floridians (State Legislators answerable to other Floridians) determining Florida's Electoral Ballot!
It was none of Justice Scalia's business to interfere: not his, or anyone else on the SCOTUS.
"...the citizen's were arduously solving the recount issue"
That is correct, they were. And they were interfered with in that solution (however stumbling and screwed up it appeared to non-Floridians).
Floridians did not determine Florida's Electoral Ballot in 2000: Anton Scalia and the SCOTUS did.
That was INJUSTICE.
And Scalia insults us, by invoking the opinion of the "press" (whoever the freak he thinks that means)... it was up to Floridians and Floridians alone, and not the "press"...
Floridians did not determine their own Electoral Ballot in 2000 (nor did the "press"): that Ballot was determined by Justices Scalia Rhenquist and Thomas, and by the mysteriously unsigned Justices Kennedy and O'Connor.
Scalia was being dishonest about his motives regarding world opinion of this country when he said that anyway. In 2002 he wrote, regarding a death penalty case, "'Acknowledgement' of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court."
Does being conservative mean not even paying attention to yourself?
That "we were the laughingstock" is a key admission on Scalia's part. At best, he reached his decision not based upon a principle of constitutional law, but on a desire to make the US look good.
That's what an "activist judge" would do.
He is a self-important, arrogant hypocrite.
Actually, he's in a four way tie (w/ the other three horsemen of the apocolypse: Roberts, Alito and Thomas.)
You know... I don't care WHAT political philosphy you support, the current supreme court's lineup must be the worst of all possible setups: Four justices always vote one way... four fustices always vote the other... And Justice Kennedy becomes the most powerful man in the world!
I don't like having so few "swing votes". In my ideal world, I would have only 1-3 conservatives (meaning, reliable votes, in the mold of Thomas, Alito, Scalie & Roberts) balanced by 1-3 liberals (meaing reliable liberal votes, like Ginsburg, Souter, Breyers & Stevens) and have anywhere from 3 to 7 swing votes in the middle - people like justice Kennedy, former justice O'Connor, and others with slightly more civil libertarian leangings, but coming from a similar, intellectually rigourous (as opposed to purely political approach) approach.
That way you know that every issue will get the true test on constitutionality that it deserves. Right now, Kennedy is the whole court.
That wasn't the only Scalia lie in that interview that went unchallenged. Scalia said in the interview "I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore."
This is false. The first of the two candidates to go running to the courts was WPE Bush.
If Gore had brought the case, since the Plaintiff's name always comes first, the case would have been Gore v. Bush. The case is actually called Bush v. Gore, so who brought it into the courts first.
Justice Scalia is an oxymoron.
I see someone does not have a sense of humor and had my first post removed. Oh well... If you insist.
Here are some of the results from that study that favored Bush.
Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties
Bush by 225
Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide
Bush by 430
Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes
Bush by 493
Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000)
Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) - Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only
Bush by 537
The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including "overvotes" — ballots containing more than one vote for an office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
AA,
Was it unanimous among the press or not?
"The liberal press can't be trusted anyway. so their conclusions would be without credibility in any event."
You mean the CONSERVATIVE press. The conservative news media showed MONUMENTAL favoritism to Bush not just during the 2000 election, but als the year BEFORE the elction in 1999, not just when Bush entered the 2000 Republican Presidential Primary Race in July of 1999, but also from March of 1999 to June of 1999, and that pro-Bush favoritism by the conservative news media SKYROCKETED after he entered.
Bob Somerby, who runs The Daily Howler site http://www.dailyhowler.com, has done several pieces in his archives about how the corporate conservatiev Republican Party controlled news media and all of the corporate conservative Republican news media hacks and hackettes all showed favoritsim to Liar Bush. The "liberal media" lie that you conservatives tell and repeat is just that, a BIG LIE.
ps.
Yes. Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225.
AA,
Its not a moot point. Scalia said there was unanimity among the press. There wasn't. He either is misinformed or lying.
It is moot as the election is over and it doesn't matter what the press thinks.
I have also shown that it was "unanimous" via the study that Gore lost even if his appeal for the recount was granted.
Nice try but you (and MMFA) are simply quibbling.
No, AA, no one is quibbling. Scalia said that the press unanimously agreed that Gore lost. That is not the case. Its not quibbling when a Supreme Court justice is either lying or misrepresenting things.
If it's moot, then why is Scalia still defending his role in the decision?
Hint: it's not moot. It's a matter of historical record, and (to some degree) a precedent.
There are 4000+ body bags that have come back from Iraq so far. They wouldn't have been killed if not for that decision.
It's not at all moot.
The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush.
I'm not sure of the angle AA's going for here. He re-printed the results of the limited area recounts, which showed Bush ahead, but not the more comprehensive reviews to argue that the press unanimously agreed that Bush won?
Always interesting.
"The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign"
-AA
This point is moot because the Florida Supreme Court ruled that all Florida votes were to be recounted.
The fact that Al Gore abandoned his presidental aspirations after he came so close in 2000 tells me he had no true desire to be president, He didn't deserve it. As close as he came in 2000, along with Bush's lack of accomplishment, in 2004 Al should have been a shoe in. However instead of fighting back Al followed long learned wisdom - "If at first you don't succeed - Quit"! Had Al won in 2004, what happened in 2000 would be a pimple on the butt of history. Instead of proving what kind of president he would be, he lives on only on the promise of what could have been. Sorry Al, but until you can prove yourself otherwise, you are still a looser!
My bad - I was trying to accentuate - "Loooser"
Yes, and the "winner" was a uniter and not a divider during his two terms, eh? Do you really want to comment on dedication when the guy you voted for twice took more vacation time than any other President in history?
2000 would have been more than a "pimple on the butt of history" even if Gore won in 2004. Gore would have found a country terrified by being attacked in 2001, entrenched in the largest debt in its history, and inheriting an unnecessary war. What's your point?
He is a quitter and he took us down with him.
Al Gore's no quitter, he simply moved on.
The person who "took us down" was every jacka** that voted for Junior not once but twice!
That doesn't say much for the candidates the Dems put up against Junior, does it?
It says more about the nuts who voted for him.
Pearlene,
Are you referring to Democratic Party voters who crossed over? ;-)
AA, ANYONE who was stupid enough to vote for the fake cowboy from Texas is a fool.
Including those who are going to vote for Obama this time around?
What part of ANYONE don't you understand?
Junior is inept, period! The list of his failures is long. If you bought his fake Texas drawl and bullshi* line about uniting you should have realized it was a hoax during his first 100 days in office. So whether you're a Dem or Rep, if you voted for Junior, IMO, you're a fool.
Dems,
Did you vote for Kerry in 2004? Would you have voted for Gore in '04? If you voted for Bush both times, please don't blame anyone else.
Of course it was Dems, anyone with a half a brain could see your distinction.
No, Tommy, your half a brain got it wrong due to lack of thinking prowess. Those with fully functioning brains see nothing the same way you do.
No, it was a comment on our political system because it spoke directly to what you feel qualifies one to be president. Talking about who "deserves" it, and who's a "looser"[sic] is the way 9th graders elect a class president. It's not the way that mature adults think.
"The fact that Al Gore abandoned his presidental aspirations after he came so close in 2000 tells me he had no true desire to be president, He didn't deserve it."
Do you have any concept of what it's like to make a serious run for the presidency? Constant traveling, speaking, interviewing, debating, fund raising, planning strategy, hiring and organizing an enormous staff, ALL THIS while still trying to hold down your present sworn duty, be it a governor, senator, etc.
Candidates do this for over a year. You try doing it for half that amount of time and see how much desire you have left to do it again after you lose.
Dems,
Who did you vote for in the 2000 and 2004 elections? Would you have voted for Gore in 2004?
Hahaha... Green energy. That's rich. No wait, Al Gore is rich.
In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power over 19 average American households for the same period.The center obtained information about Gore's home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
The center claims that after they exposed Gore's massive home energy use, he scurried to make his home more energy-efficient, adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home's windows and ductwork. Now, however, Gore consumes more electricity than before the green makeover.
Since making his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore's home devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month—1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations—at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-23/72272.html
It depends. Are you the chauffeur? Just exactly where is Hypocracy rd? My guess is it up there on the left.
Its driven by those who hate "Hollywood Values" yet consider a former actor to be the greatest President of the last century, wanted to amend the Constitution for another and admire a third (Thompson). Its driven by those who claim "family values" are a priority yet hate those in their families who happen to be gay (i.e. Gingrich). These same folks who love family values can't wait to vote for the next adulterer in their party (Newt, Rudy, McCain). They call for lower spending and balanced budgets and vote for those who have given us the biggest deficits in our history. They claim that experience, especially military experience, is important when it comes to Obama, but it wasn't for Bush. They clamor for smaller government, but vote for those who enlarge faster than ever. They claim that "I did not inhale" was worse than not answering questions about past drug abuse.
They claim "judicial activism" when they disagree with a ruling, but not when the judges they agree with shoot down equal pay for women, or consistently misinterpret the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution. They call for States' rights until an election issue comes up. They are against abortion, but consider the fertility clinics that dispose of many embryoes to be acceptable. They consistently call for war, but won't answer the call themselves. They espouse the virtues of the 9/11 commission only after they were against it and fail to implement its recommendations. They demand a President answer questions under oath about his private life, but not about the largest terrorist attack in the nation's history.
Story on NPR yesterday about the conflict in Afghanistan. US soldier quote: "War is just old men talking and young men dieing"
Says it all, doesn't it?
didn't I read that his humble bungalow used even more energy this year?
If most of your reading is done at the wingnut sites you link to here, then I wouldn't be surprised if you did. But I'm not sure how you expect anybody else to know if you read it if you don't.
I know this is the first great liberal whine of the 21st century, but isn't 8 years enough?
Considering how George Bush has left the Republican party in shambles, barely breathing at this point, and twisted conservatism into an unrecognizable shell of its core principles; and how unified and strong the Democratic party is to retake government at every level, one would think you would seize the opportunity at hand, instead of digging this up again.
You're right Tommy, . . . that an empty suit like Obama actually stands a chance of being president clearly evidences the remarkable amount of damage that bush did to the republican brand.
Complaining about a lost election 8 years later is not whining, you are right.
Applicable synonyms would be; beef, bellyache, carp, crab, croak, fuss, gripe, grouse, growl, grumble, kick, moan, murmur, mutter, repine, squawk, wail, whine, and yammer.
Call it whatever you'd like, be my guest.
Why don't you just take a step back and look at the position you've put yourself in. Scalia told a bald-faced lie in an attempt to rewrite the history of that election, and your reaction is to accuse MMFA of digging up the past and whining about it. How intellectually dishonest can an argument get?
But I guess you win because you can cut and paste words from thesaurus.com.
Actually it was from merriam-webster.com, hence the italics. But they sure fit, don't they?
Go on about 2000 and your cries of lying and dishonesty, while the rest of us get on with this election, 8 years later. Hope you can find time to vote....
Tommy,
That's all they got.
Clams,
Accept the fact that the only way for Scalia to be lying is to use made up criteria for recounts that were never in play back then in order to force a Gore victory. It is very, very weak. None of those counts were ever actually undertaken, except in the study. Therefore they are irrelevant and superfluous.
It does not make any sense to say the election is disputed by the media using criteria nobody back then would have used.
The simple matter is, if Gore had his recount, the survey showed he would have lost.... again. That is unanimous.
Scalia is telling the truth whether you accept it or not.
Clams,
I read it. The unanimity is in the form of commissioning a report by someone else. They didn't do the study. Therefore they are not claiming to be in agreement with the report nor are they claiming to be against the report.
It is only the report that states a few hypothetical methods that show Gore with more votes.
That is not the newspapers claiming that Bush lost or that the recount would have claimed Gore a winner. If you read the report you will see that these types of methodologies were never used in the recounts. They are as immaterial as you saying your Aunt Becky's vote in Broward County, had she and her Swinging 70's club all voted, Gore would have won. Those other counts are meaningless except to keep you and others from accepting the fact that it is over and your candidate lost. Had Gore prevailed in his appeal to recount, he still would have lost. Nothing will change that. Nothing. The study backed that up so the news media that commissioned the study, unless they rejected it, is unanimous in it's conclusion.
In every way they would have counted it back then, Bush won.
I read it.
Try reading it one more time, and this time try for comprehension rather than bragging rights.
AA,
Did all press accounts say that Bush would have won a recount, yes or no? Don't worry about the methods they wanted to use. Did every single media outlet agree that Bush would have won the election had recounts been done?
Election results are always conveniently irrelevant and inapplicable to liberals when they lose, however when they win their bellyaching is barely audible.
Funny how that is.
Then bellyaching about rigged and fraudulent elections only when you lose makes you look like sore losers and pitiful whiners, for if fraud works in your favor it's just dandy, right?.
Thank you for illustrating the disingenuous thievery behind liberals and elections.
Talk about stupid....
Stupid is as stupid......
Do you need that much help?. When one only complains about election integrity and possible fraud when they lose, and then shut their mouths when they win, they it's not the fraud at all that bothers them, it's the loss of the election.
You can't possibly be this dense not to figure that out? If so, find a less challenging thread.
Nice try, but you claimed that voter fraud has worked in the Democrats' favor. So again, specifically, what election are you talking about?
If you meant to say that Democrats have won elections in spite of voter fraud, then that would make a bit more sense, and all you have to do is go back to Brab's post where he points out that that's perhaps one of your dumbest points ever. Don't call me dense because you can't string a coherent sentence together.
I claimed that apparently Democrats don't give a damn if election fraud works in their favor since they don't utter a word if they win, which means the process and its integrity is quite secondary to winning; considering the only time they whine is when they lose.
This is the last time I am explaining it to you.
Tommy,
If there had been accusations of voter fraud in 2006, I would have wanted them investigated to the fullest. I think all of our elections should be more closely monitored in this country.
Let me give you & Clamsy an elementary school analogy, considering that is where your mindset and skill level is on this simple concept, it should be easy to understand.
"Mommy, little Bobby's team cheated and the referee said we lost!", but we won, they cheated!!", said Jimmy (a Democrat) "And they cheated last week too when they won, every time they win, they cheat!!"
"But Jimmy, what about the games you won, I guess they didn't cheat then, right?", said Mommy (a sensible conservative)
"It don't care about that, we won!", said Jimmy.
Why do you have to use an analogy? Why can't you use facts and figures to support your assinine assertion? I'd also like to know: when did Democrats engage in voter fraud/disenfranchisement and win (and keep quiet about it?).
See, Tommy, you're a joke. It's never happened. You cannot support your stupidity, so you go for irrelevant analogies. You bring up a strawman - and you do it so well. It's too bad for you that we know better.
CSL, I've been doing my duty intervening in these Tommy arguments. I think the problem is he's been getting a little wackier than usual lately. We had a little heat wave out here in SoCal, that may explain some of it. I'm seeing confusion in that some Of Tommy's positions are even weirder than the person arguing with him imagines.
This one for example. If you look at Tommy's little league analogy, he's not implying that Jimmy's team cheated when they won(i.e. Democratic perpetrated fraud), but that the other team cheated even when Jimmy's team won, and Jimmy is being hypocritical by not harping on the dishonesty of the losing team.
Jimmy seems content with his victory, and not on obsessing about the cheating issue, as the cheaters got what they deserved by losing.
Jimmy's mom( the sensible conservative), however, who may have had a bet on the other team, seems intent on getting Jimmy to start whining that the losing team cheated.
I know, it doesn't make much sense, but I'm starting to understand the concrete thinking more lately.I may be able to teach Wingnut as a second language courses someday.
I love it when you all come together and flail as one, if one peeks under your collective skin, I is there......you complete me.
Thanks for giving me the confidence to keep on keepin' on....have a great weekend kids.
No prob! When twenty liberals, who need the backup, are poking their nonsense at me, I enjoy it much more for it seems fairer.
Sorry, no candy this time Colonel, but salsa and margaritas for everyone.
When twenty liberals, who need the backup...
Tommy, I've noticed you & a few of the other conservative posters crying about this much more lately, the "outnumbered victim" bit. There are enough days when the cons outnumber the moonbats, at least in volume of posts, and you don't hear the libs whining "there's too many of you!".
I've been in threads where it was me and 3 or 4 dittoheads, no problem, except when all of them start posting links to lengthy articles, and I just don't have the time to respond to everything.
It's not "backup" when several people are pointing out the flaws in your argument, it's more like people trying different approaches to helping you understand. Don't be so ungrateful.
And try to have a sense of humor. I've seen it, you just don't seem to be packing it lately. Have a good weekend.
"I claimed that apparently Democrats don't give a damn if election fraud works in their favor[...]"
So you're just going to repeat that same incoherent phrase? That's your response? If your sticking with that phrase, then I'll ask again: When has voter fraud ever worked
in favor of Democrats? And who perpetrated this alleged fraud? Democrats? Or are you saying Republicans so inept that their attempts at voter fraud have actually worked in favor of Democrats?
The point is that the Democrats, at least some in recent elections, absolutely cannot stand losing elections, and instead of accepting it and realizing it's their message and their candidates that are at fault, they try and sniff out fraud or blame disenfranchisement, or cry the election is rigged against them and that is the reason they lost.
Crybabies, whiners, squawkers, you name it.......sore losers, period.
Of course there was, pure coincidence that those horrible things happened in 2000 and 2004 (D losses), but not 2006 (D wins). Imagine that....
Thank you again for making my point, I am glad you're back.
"You're just talking out of your ass then?"............"you get to spew grade-school insults"
Ya can't make this stuff up, don't ever change! (hahaha!!)
Isn't that a cracker, Clams? I'm going to try my own analogy here, one that may not be as Dada as Tommy's, but will make up for it in "reality based" kinda stuff.
I go to the corner store , and notice after I leave that I have less money than I should. I suspect the clerk of short-changing me.
I go to the same store the next day, and count my change. It is exactly what I calculate it should be.
So, when I end up with less money than I should, I accuse the clerk of cheating, but when I come out OK, it seems that I'm not complaining at all.
Am I a hypocrite?
"Isn't that a cracker, Clams"
Colonel, You're confusing soup, clam chowder, with the entree, clams casino.....you need a little culinary brush-up there.
You all are also forgetting to count the nearly 20,000 eligible voters in FL that were crossed off the voting roles because their names looked similar to convicted felons. These happened to be primarily minorities who more than likely would've voted for Gore. You can thank K. Harris for that one too. The Repos will stop at nothing to stack the deck in their favor.
- DeminTX / Friday June 27, 2008 3:29:10 PM EDT
That's funny. Your post indicated that Democrats were guilty of voter fraud. Now, Democrats are snivelling whiners because they have lost elections? Now that's freakin' rich, Tommy.
You're just as disingenuous now as the first day you started posting here. At least you're a consistent liar.
2000 - liberals lose, liberals whine, disenfranchisement, fraud, all of it.
2004 - liberals lose Ohio, liberals whine, ballot fraud, whatever.
2006 - liberals win, (crickets chirp in the night)
It's not the fraud or whatever, it's the loss they can't accept.
Accept it.
Sorry to butt in, but from out here looking in, it seems that Hymie the concrete thinking Robot can't seem to imagine the possibility that there could be fraud in one election, but not in another.
At one point it was about election fraud working in favor of the Democrats, which means that Democrats weren't complaining when they themselves cheated. Then it was about Republicans cheating and still losing. Not that the argument makes sense either way, of course.
What's really funny is that this isn't the first time he's made this argument. I've seen it at least three times now, so it's not like he's just coming up with it off the top of his head. You would think that either he would develop the argument in some way, or he would stop making it.
"I have no idea whether there was any fraud in 2006 or not?"
Then your point is invalid. "Democrats can't genuinely complain about evidence of voter fraud when they lose because they don't complain about voter fraud when there's no evidence of voter fraud to complain about". Did anyone bellyache about voter fraud in any of the elections between 1964 and 1996, whether they won or lost? No? Then I guess nobody can point out evidence of voter fraud ever, no matter what. Brilliant.
You've boiled your point down to a baseless assertion quite nicely, though. It doesn't matter what actually is, you just say what would be if those circumstances were met. You'll have to pardon us if we're not impressed with your psychic abilities.
There's never been hardly any evidence of voter fraud in the past 40 years. Those days are long gone.
There has been evidence of election fraud in several previous elections, and all that evidence calls the Republicans into question, not the Democrats.
The flipside to Tommy's argument (one of them) is that if Dems are winning through fraud, where are the Republicans' complaints? Like they're not going to bring up legitimate charges of fraud because they're just that noble or restrained or something. And if there is no evidence of the fraud, then Dems can't be expected to know about it either. There would be no reason to be concerned about the "integrity of the process" at all, so it's insanely stupid to think that a failure to complain about nothing should be used as a prerequisite for pointing out actual evidence of fraud.
And if it's about Republicans cheating and still losing (the other argument), then where's the evidence for that? And if there is evidence, why aren't Republicans complaining about it themselves, since both parties are supposed to hold election integrity up as more important than anything else? Fraud should be brought up by Republicans as well, under either of Tommy's scenarios. Surely he wouldn't be advocating a different standard of behavior for one party than the other, would he? That would be partisan, and that would be just impossible to believe!
Just imagine if Obama stole the election this year, Tommy would have to say that Republicans can't complain because they didn't complain about their previous wins. He'd have to call them a bunch of bellyaching whiners and tell them to move on. I just bet.
You mean explaining your confusion to other posters so they don't waste too much time? You're welcome, but I don't think that really "makes your point", it just is an attempt to explain why you don't have one.
Just for fun, let's grant you the hypothetical that Clinton stole both elections, Bush stole both elections, and Obama will steal the election this year. Democrats don't complain when they win, but then, neither do Republicans.
Even under the thoeretical construct that both sides act the same, the failure to whine when one wins doesn't indicate anything. It doesn't take away the right to complain about having an election stolen from you. Even if both sides do it, both sides would have the right to call out their opponents. The idea that either side would have to bellyache about their own win in order to complain about losing a stolen election makes no sense under any circumstances.
Seems to me that you are the one whining about how "George Bush has left the Republican party in shambles, barely breathing at this point, and twisted conservatism into an unrecognizable shell of its core principles".
Please. You really think we are happy about the shape the country is in and should be happy that Dems may win something as a result. That would be not only a highly partisan view, but a very selfish one as well.
Dear Julia,
You probably know this, but Republicanism requires that one be selfish.
Love,
Rush
Being selfish (aka a con) means never having to say you're sorry.
Maybe he meant Loosener.
My occasional favorite breakfast fibre. Loosener's Castor Oil Flakes, with real glycerin fibrofoam. The All Weather Breakfast!
ECM,
You aren't a lawyer, are you? Your level of Constitutional understanding has been spoon-fed by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Care to post the precedent cited by Scalia in the detainee Habeas Corpus case? Care to explain the Constitutionality of limiting women's rights to receive equal pay for equal work? Care to state who has overturned Congress more in their terms than Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy?
Fried you beat me to it. . . . It is you to whom I refer below . . .
Those of us who depend on the Supreme Court to interpret the law rather than make up law can be thankful for Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito,
Last week another poster advised that Scalia and Thomas are among the top 3 judicial activists on the Court, in terms of declaring unconstitutional laws enacted by congress. (I think Kennedy was number two).
Fried, this morning I read the majority opinion of that case we were discussing the other day. I briefly glanced over the concurrence and dissent. Looks to me that the case most directly on point was the one from the aftermath of WWII, Johnson v. Eisentrager (sp). There, the Court held that German POWs held in an American prison in the American Zone of occupation, could not petition the Court for writ of HC. The petitioners were convicted by an American Military Commission of war crimes.
Kennedy distinguished this case in a number of ways, some convincing, some not. I had to read it rather quickly, but Kennedy derived some three-factor test from Eisentrager, essentially revolving around how the prisoner was convicted, where he was captured and and where the prison was, and how pragmatic would it be to extend jurisdiction . ..
Anyway, in briefly looking over Scalia's dissent, it looks like this is the case on which he relies too. Needless to say, he was unconvinced with Kennedy's factors . . . . So as a preliminary matter, the case precedent most on point supports the dissent, and the majority had to do some legal maneuvering to get around this precedent.
Have you read the opinion?
I have read most of it, its been a busy week.
I think it differs from the German case much more because the enemy this time around is not wearing a uniform and, in many cases, we don't know who the enemy is or is not. Therefore, its almost impossible, without some kind of trial in some cases (not all) to know who is a terrorist and who is not.
Scalia's bluster about this decision costing American lives is in a style that many conservatives (again, not all) attribute to liberals. We have had the debate on this site about liberals going on emotion and not fact, and that is what Scalia is doing here. I don't see how this ruling could affect how we conduct our wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. If we have any reason to arrest or capture a perceived enemy, our forces still can and should. The only change is that now these people get the opportunity to explain who they are. The label "enemy combatant" could be given to citizens of this country as well which is very, very scary to me. To be honest, without giving these people any rights, we are in a position to make more enemies. If you knew that an army could capture you and hold you indefinitely without cause, would you support their supposed "liberation" of your country? To make things clearer, why would any of these people help us if they knew we could arrest them and hold them indefinitely without recourse?
The Court ruling is correct because its how we would expect our citizens to be treated. We must always live up to our ideals.
Fried,
The two cases do appear to have significant similarities, as well as differences. It definitely was not irrelevant and Kennedy's painstaking efforts to distinguish it, prove its worth.
Nonetheless, after reading the majority, I tend to agree with Kennedy (and you). It stands to reason that unless it is entirely unreasonable, the writ should be extended. As Kennedy noted, the writ is designed to restrain the other branches, and thus we should be weary about them being the ones to define its parameters.
I still haven't read the dissent, and I'm particularly interested in Robert's dissent more so than Scalia's . . .
However, although Scalia mentions the prisoners who were released only to kill again, I don't believe he relies on them for any kind of legal support for his argument. I'll have to read it closely of course, but it looked to me that he did the same as Kennedy, relied first on the language of the constitution and then on case law, particularly Eisentrager . . . His reflections of the prisoners erroneously released looked more like a preliminary statement
ECM,
Define "activist judge" for us. What is an activist judge in your mind?
ECM,
Define "activist judge" for us. What is an activist judge in your mind?
ECM - I don't suppose you'd be willing to come visit our little online community on the morning of November 5th, would you?
I look forward to it.
Well, Obama might be less electable if all of us "whinners" and quibblers would quit remembering things that our eyes and ears told us happened, and just let the tv and am radio tell us what really "happened".
Starting with the birth of our Lord and Savior, Ronald Wilson GipperChrist, through the triumphant War on Terror presidency of Chimpy McEightball.
we rascally republicans have in store for him
As if you're a player in the GOP. heh. Don't tell us, EC, I love surprises.Maybe Obama had a dog that crapped on a flag when he was 10.
How's this:
Hannity is "THE GREATEST, BEST AMERICAN GOD HAS EVER GIVEN MAN ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!!!!!!!!"
Thomp., it was only guessing at a possibility on my part, nothing confirmed as fact. So Hannity's America, at most, could say "Internet rumors hint at possibility that a close associate of Obama's defaced sacred American symbol!"
That would be a great teaser, right before the Beyond Belief segment , where Sean unleashes his cutting edge investigating and reporting skills on make-believe stories .
Barack Obama is PROUD that Jesus was an American.
We on the right will be forever thankful that at this critical time, when the political stars were aligned for the democrat party to win the presidency, the dems managed to screw up and nominate an unelectable candidate.
LOL
You do remember the last Republican nominated war hero? Does the name Bob Dole ring any bells?
6/27/08
Dear Mr. Rose,
For you to sit there and allow Justice Scalia to say that the press unanimously agreed that Bush won Florida in 2000 is one of the most disgraceful moments I've ever seen in journalism.
What kind of crap "journalist" are you? What kind of wimp are you?
There were all kinds of problems with the 2000 election. They've been very well documented.
Try reading "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen: exit polls, election fraud, and the official count." There is a very enlightening section in this book about the 2000 election.
It appears in this interview that not only do you not have a clue what you're talking about, but you roll over like a complete patsy. You're an embarrassment.
What I can't believe is you liberals still haven't gotten off this "Gore won Florida" line.
As stated above many times Bush won every count under every standard out there. What a voter might have "intended" to do is irrelevant. Election workers can't take a ballot and try to read the mind of the person casting the ballot.
Furthermore, days before the Florida Supreme Court's ridiculous second ruling (recall that the first one was vacated on a 9-0 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court) the Florida votes were certified as required under existing Florida law and federal statute and sent to the Electoral College where the ONLY place under the Constitution they can be challenged is in the U.S. House of Representatives when they are opened and tabulated.
The Supreme Court never should have taken the case and simply allowed the constitutional provisions to work themselves out. The Supreme Court STOPPED a vote count that had been over for about 2 weeks.
NoLeft are you a comedian?...
The Supreme Court did not stop a vote count that had been over two weeks before.
In your Rush Limbaugh mind you may think this, but the facts (as usual) are not on your side. The Supreme Court stepped in and stopped a recount that would have surely given Gore the presidency. (Even with all the disgraceful cheating and voter suppression that the Cons had inflicted on Florida and on American democracy.)
You would think at this point that the Cons would take a moment before they continue spreading talk-radio lies. But I guess it's so ingrained in them now--it's all they've got left.