Time tables

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sometimes I really cant beleive that anyone is stupid enough to vote for someone like Bill Clinton, and it huirts that he won with less than half of the votes , darn technicalities!

==================================================================
Fewer than half of the people - not even a majority- voted for Juniorbush and he was by far less intelligent, less competent, more stubborn and more hated by people both at home and abroad than Clinton, who was a rather competent president and  a genius , when compared with Juniorbush, or Olebush, and certainly Bob Dole.

I do not think that porking a consenting adult like Monica was even one-thousandth as bad as the warmongering and incompetency of Juniorbush. 

Even though Rush has somehow convinced you otherwise.

[Plane]

.001% less than half voted for GB the first time he was elected.

5% less than half voted for BC his first win , but I kept my whineing to a minimum , I am not a Democrat.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not a Democrat.


===================
No shit.

Really?

[Michael Tee]

.001% less than half voted for GB the first time he was elected.

5% less than half voted for BC his first win , but I kept my whineing to a minimum , I am not a Democrat.
=======================================================================

Clinton's win was squarely inside the rules of the game.  Bush Jr.'s was a blatant theft blatantly approved by a partisan Supreme Court in which the conservative "majority" instantly and inexplicably forsook their customary "Leave it all up to the states" attitudes and decided that this time a Federal Supreme Court should dictate to the states how to run their election process.

You don't need to be a Democrat to protest an obvious foul and a biased referee.

[Amianthus]

Clinton's win was squarely inside the rules of the game.  Bush Jr.'s was a blatant theft blatantly approved by a partisan Supreme Court in which the conservative "majority" instantly and inexplicably forsook their customary "Leave it all up to the states" attitudes and decided that this time a Federal Supreme Court should dictate to the states how to run their election process.

You don't need to be a Democrat to protest an obvious foul and a biased referee.

The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.>>

The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida courts from revising the Florida vote as they saw fit, making a 180 degree turn on the issue of whether it should be the individual states or the Federal courts which had the right and the duty to oversee elections held within the state by the state.  The Florida courts were proposing their own remedy to fix the obvious flaws in the Florida vote, which all the SCOTUS judges had found had existed, were flaws, and needed to be fixed.

[BT]

The Supreme Court does not have split chambers. They vote all at once.
Some vote for, some vote against.
Just like in regular elections except perhaps the SCOTUS voters are better informed.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Supreme Court does not have split chambers. They vote all at once.
<<Some vote for, some vote against. >>

You are seriously misinformed.  They and even their clerks discuss the issues amongst themselves and a lot of judge-on-judge lobbying can go on before final opinions are crafted.

[BT]

You are seriously misinformed.  They and even their clerks discuss the issues amongst themselves and a lot of judge-on-judge lobbying can go on before final opinions are crafted.

Not much different than congress or local governments or even general elections.

[Michael Tee]

You better believe it takes place on a much higher intellectual plane.

[BT]

You better believe it takes place on a much higher intellectual plane.

I did state that the SCOTUS was better informed.

But the process is the same.

[Plane]

<<The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.>>

The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida courts from revising the Florida vote as they saw fit, making a 180 degree turn on the issue of whether it should be the individual states or the Federal courts which had the right and the duty to oversee elections held within the state by the state.&nbsp; The Florida courts were proposing their own remedy to fix the obvious flaws in the Florida vote, which all the SCOTUS judges had found had existed, were flaws, and needed to be fixed.

"As a deeply divided Supreme Court issued 5-4 rulings the past few weeks bouncing from liberal to conservative interpretations of the law, something was woefully missing from the coverage: journalists apologizing to the nation for regularly insinuating that the Court's December 2000 decision concerning Bush v. Gore was politically based."
..............................................................................

"Hmmm. So, if conservative Roberts replaced the conservative Rehnquist, and conservative Alito replaced the moderate O'Connor, doesn't that make today's court slightly more conservative than the one that supposedly gave Bush the presidency for purely political reasons?"

.............................................................................................

"At the time, the clear liberals on the Court were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. On the right were William Rehnquist, Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Somewhat in the center -- the swing voters -- were Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.

Add it up, and the supposedly "conservative Supreme Court" in 2000 had four liberals, three conservatives, and two somewhat moderate swing voters. "



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/29/conservative-court-made-bush-president-now-balanced

 

In 2000 and 2001 the Court continued its shift toward states’ rights by ruling that states cannot be sued for violating a federal law barring age discrimination and by shielding states from certain employment-discrimination lawsuits based on the ADA. However, the Court also ruled that Congress has the authority to prohibit states from selling personal information on drivers’ licenses.

In 2000 the Court became embroiled in one of the closest and most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history. In the hours and days following Election Day, November 7, neither Democratic candidate Al Gore nor Republican candidate George W. Bush could claim victory due to an extremely close race in the state of Florida. In order to gain the 270 electoral votes necessary to capture the presidency, each candidate needed to win the Florida popular vote and thus the state’s 25 electoral votes. A mandated machine recount of Florida’s votes put Bush in the lead by only hundreds of votes out of about 6 million cast, and Gore requested hand recounts of ballots in four heavily Democratic counties. When some of these counties failed to complete their manual recounts by an election certification deadline, Gore filed an election contest to challenge the official certification of Bush as the winner. On December 8 the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes, or ballots on which machines failed to register a vote for president. Bush appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 9 the Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, halted these manual recounts while it considered the case.

On December 12 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida court’s decision, effectively sealing Bush’s victory. Seven of the nine justices found the court-ordered recount unconstitutional. They concluded that the use of different standards by different counties to determine a legal vote violates a voter’s right to equal protection—that is, the right for all voters to be treated equally. However, the Court split 5 to 4 on the issue of whether to permit further counting under more uniform standards, with the majority ruling that a recount could not be completed constitutionally before a December 12 deadline for the state to choose its electors. The dissenting justices argued that the Court was wrong to involve itself in a state election dispute and that its split decision risked the credibility of the Court.


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_5/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

The basic gist of this post has been submerged in stupidities once more.

The fact is that Clinton was vastly better as a president than the sorry-assed George Bush.

The Supremes did no one any favors by installing this incompetent Juniorbush in the White House.

Hillary could still conceivable be elected to office.

There is no hope that Jebbiebush, Laurabush or even the young MexiBush will ever even be considered for anything presidential because of the generally recognized failure of Juniorbush at everything.