Gay marrige- Iowa judges version

[QuantumT]

What the end result would have been is not the issue. If the recount was started in the first place, it quite obviously shows that there were some legislation that made it possible for Gore to make such a claim. If there weren't such law, how did the recount even got started?

There were various laws in play that were somewhat at odds with each other, so the court had to make a decision.

I'm sorry that I wasted your time, since you must have multiple PhD on this subject... Yes, lets talk only about those things we actually know. So how's the weather there, eh? It's freezing cold here and it just started snowing.

I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but your post clearly showed that you hadn't bothered to even do so much as read the wikipedia article on the case.

Also, if you're just going to be inflammatory, then I recommend that you just don't post.

[Uppercut]

Also, if you're just going to be inflammatory, then I recommend that you just don't post.

Thats mildly ironic.

[zse]

What the end result would have been is not the issue. If the recount was started in the first place, it quite obviously shows that there were some legislation that made it possible for Gore to make such a claim. If there weren't such law, how did the recount even got started?

There were various laws in play that were somewhat at odds with each other, so the court had to make a decision.

And you're saying they did the "Right decision" by stopping the recount? In a modern democratic nation the elections of president & parliament are the most important political events, and everything should be done to ensure that the result really corresponds to the opinions (=casted votes) of the people. Here that would have meant that the recount would have been done regardless of the timespan it would have taken, or other hindrances & inconveniences it would have meant. Making it absolutely sure that the correct candidate was to be named for the next president should be the most important thing. Instead the supreme court decided that they rather make a decision by those "various laws that were somewhat at odds with each other" so the recount was stopped and Bush was named winner of elections. They could have made the other decision by making sure the recount was to be done properly.

I'm sorry that I wasted your time, since you must have multiple PhD on this subject... Yes, lets talk only about those things we actually know. So how's the weather there, eh? It's freezing cold here and it just started snowing.

I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but your post clearly showed that you hadn't bothered to even do so much as read the wikipedia article on the case.

How do you know how much I know about this thing? If I'm so wrong about everything I've written here, then point the mistakes I've made and tell me your Truth.

Also, if you're just going to be inflammatory, then I recommend that you just don't post.

Also, if you're just going to be intimidated, then I recommend that you just don't read.
While doing so, you can for example listen some music (from my favorite band, hope you like it):

[QuantumT]

And you're saying they did the "Right decision" by stopping the recount? In a modern democratic nation the elections of president & parliament are the most important political events, and everything should be done to ensure that the result really corresponds to the opinions (=casted votes) of the people. Here that would have meant that the recount would have been done regardless of the timespan it would have taken, or other hindrances & inconveniences it would have meant. Making it absolutely sure that the correct candidate was to be named for the next president should be the most important thing. Instead the supreme court decided that they rather make a decision by those "various laws that were somewhat at odds with each other" so the recount was stopped and Bush was named winner of elections. They could have made the other decision by making sure the recount was to be done properly.

It cannot go on forever. The country going without a president for any period of time is far worse than the possibility that one candidate in a very close race get's the presidency.

The recount itself was found to be unconstitutional, because of the differing rules from county to county in how the recounts would be run. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is because 2 ballots could be identical, yet be counted in one county and not the other.

Additionally, it was decided the the deadline for recounts was December 12th (the day the decision was made).

How do you know how much I know about this thing? If I'm so wrong about everything I've written here, then point the mistakes I've made and tell me your Truth.

Your original post was not something someone who had read anything about the case is likely to have said. You can argue about the particular pieces in their decision, but you just made a blanket statement that the whole decision was wrong.

Also, if you're just going to be inflammatory, then I recommend that you just don't post.

Also, if you're just going to be intimidated, then I recommend that you just don't read.
While doing so, you can for example listen some music (from my favorite band, hope you like it):

There is no need to post things where the only point is to be inflammatory.

[Antiderivative]

I am sick and tired for fighting for gay rights. Even Goldwater advocated for them.

[nerd1]

sorry for misunderstanding, but in Iowa, people can only remove the judges from their jobs, they cant actually elect them, the governor chooses the judges.

[zse]

And you're saying they did the "Right decision" by stopping the recount? In a modern democratic nation the elections of president & parliament are the most important political events, and everything should be done to ensure that the result really corresponds to the opinions (=casted votes) of the people. Here that would have meant that the recount would have been done regardless of the timespan it would have taken, or other hindrances & inconveniences it would have meant. Making it absolutely sure that the correct candidate was to be named for the next president should be the most important thing. Instead the supreme court decided that they rather make a decision by those "various laws that were somewhat at odds with each other" so the recount was stopped and Bush was named winner of elections. They could have made the other decision by making sure the recount was to be done properly.

It cannot go on forever. The country going without a president for any period of time is far worse than the possibility that one candidate in a very close race get's the presidency.

The recount itself was found to be unconstitutional, because of the differing rules from county to county in how the recounts would be run. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is because 2 ballots could be identical, yet be counted in one county and not the other.

Additionally, it was decided the the deadline for recounts was December 12th (the day the decision was made).

Yes, your opinion is that it was the "Right decision", my opinion is that it was "completely utterly BS decision that ridicules the modern democracy". My opinion is, and has been since year 2000, that the supreme court should have made sure that the recount would have been concluded with equal rules how the ballots were counted. And that wouldn't have meant that "your country would have be going without a president for any period of time". There are numerous ways that could have been used instead, one example: Bush chosen for "interim-president" (not likely the actual legal term, but note my language barrier...) for time until the recount is concluded.

How do you know how much I know about this thing? If I'm so wrong about everything I've written here, then point the mistakes I've made and tell me your Truth.

Your original post was not something someone who had read anything about the case is likely to have said. You can argue about the particular pieces in their decision, but you just made a blanket statement that the whole decision was wrong.

Even though that might be true, you still shouldn't make conclusions of my knowledge based on such a short blanket statement. You should know better than just go judging a book by it's cover as they say.

Also, if you're just going to be inflammatory, then I recommend that you just don't post.

Also, if you're just going to be intimidated, then I recommend that you just don't read.
While doing so, you can for example listen some music (from my favorite band, hope you like it):

There is no need to post things where the only point is to be inflammatory.

 

[QuantumT]

And you're saying they did the "Right decision" by stopping the recount? In a modern democratic nation the elections of president & parliament are the most important political events, and everything should be done to ensure that the result really corresponds to the opinions (=casted votes) of the people. Here that would have meant that the recount would have been done regardless of the timespan it would have taken, or other hindrances & inconveniences it would have meant. Making it absolutely sure that the correct candidate was to be named for the next president should be the most important thing. Instead the supreme court decided that they rather make a decision by those "various laws that were somewhat at odds with each other" so the recount was stopped and Bush was named winner of elections. They could have made the other decision by making sure the recount was to be done properly.

It cannot go on forever. The country going without a president for any period of time is far worse than the possibility that one candidate in a very close race get's the presidency.

The recount itself was found to be unconstitutional, because of the differing rules from county to county in how the recounts would be run. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is because 2 ballots could be identical, yet be counted in one county and not the other.

Additionally, it was decided the the deadline for recounts was December 12th (the day the decision was made).

Yes, your opinion is that it was the "Right decision", my opinion is that it was "completely utterly BS decision that ridicules the modern democracy". My opinion is, and has been since year 2000, that the supreme court should have made sure that the recount would have been concluded with equal rules how the ballots were counted. And that wouldn't have meant that "your country would have be going without a president for any period of time". There are numerous ways that could have been used instead, one example: Bush chosen for "interim-president" (not likely the actual legal term, but note my language barrier...) for time until the recount is concluded.

The issue is that there isn't any law to make that the default action, so the supreme court would have had to in effect pass new law in order to do that. They also would have been overridden other laws that are in place. So, you can argue that maybe the way the system is setup is flawed, but they performed within that system the way they were supposed to.

How do you know how much I know about this thing? If I'm so wrong about everything I've written here, then point the mistakes I've made and tell me your Truth.

Your original post was not something someone who had read anything about the case is likely to have said. You can argue about the particular pieces in their decision, but you just made a blanket statement that the whole decision was wrong.

Even though that might be true, you still shouldn't make conclusions of my knowledge based on such a short blanket statement. You should know better than just go judging a book by it's cover as they say.

Fair enough. I just don't really like blanket statements to begin with.

[nerd1]

Can we find a word or phrase to replace "queers" please?

queer is the politically correct term, and if you think about it, that is mush better than calling them "faeries" or something else derivative like that.

[zse]

And you're saying they did the "Right decision" by stopping the recount? In a modern democratic nation the elections of president & parliament are the most important political events, and everything should be done to ensure that the result really corresponds to the opinions (=casted votes) of the people. Here that would have meant that the recount would have been done regardless of the timespan it would have taken, or other hindrances & inconveniences it would have meant. Making it absolutely sure that the correct candidate was to be named for the next president should be the most important thing. Instead the supreme court decided that they rather make a decision by those "various laws that were somewhat at odds with each other" so the recount was stopped and Bush was named winner of elections. They could have made the other decision by making sure the recount was to be done properly.

It cannot go on forever. The country going without a president for any period of time is far worse than the possibility that one candidate in a very close race get's the presidency.

The recount itself was found to be unconstitutional, because of the differing rules from county to county in how the recounts would be run. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is because 2 ballots could be identical, yet be counted in one county and not the other.

Additionally, it was decided the the deadline for recounts was December 12th (the day the decision was made).

Yes, your opinion is that it was the "Right decision", my opinion is that it was "completely utterly BS decision that ridicules the modern democracy". My opinion is, and has been since year 2000, that the supreme court should have made sure that the recount would have been concluded with equal rules how the ballots were counted. And that wouldn't have meant that "your country would have be going without a president for any period of time". There are numerous ways that could have been used instead, one example: Bush chosen for "interim-president" (not likely the actual legal term, but note my language barrier...) for time until the recount is concluded.

The issue is that there isn't any law to make that the default action, so the supreme court would have had to in effect pass new law in order to do that. They also would have been overridden other laws that are in place. So, you can argue that maybe the way the system is setup is flawed, but they performed within that system the way they were supposed to.

Performed within that system the way they were supposed to?
No, that's not really what happened.

The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline.

If that ruling was made after they voted 5-4 for it, doesn't that show even for you, that there was still another choice that could have been made? 4 out of 9 members of supreme court thought that there was still enough time for recount - 5 didn't like the idea, and so the recount was stopped and not restarted. To support my opinion:

If Gore had been ahead in the vote count and Bush behind, there's not a doubt in my mind that the same Supreme Court would have voted 9 to 0 to [re]count the vote and I would have supported the decision... Bush v. Gore will go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, along with the Dred Scott case.

[zse]

Can we find a word or phrase to replace "queers" please?

queer is the politically correct term, and if you think about it, that is mush better than calling them "faeries" or something else derivative like that.

Whether it may not be perfectly politically correct term, at least these guys weren't bothered by it