Bush v Gore (2000) revisited

[SamOdom]

Bush v. Gore
531 U.S. 98 (2000)
Docket Number: 00-949
Abstract



Argued:
December 11, 2000

Decided:
December 12, 2000


Subjects: Judicial Power: Civil Rights



Facts of the Case
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.


Question Presented
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?


Conclusion
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice.

 

[SamOdom]

7-2 against Fl/Gore Amazing how time can change facts.

 

[SamOdom]

"Per curiam decision"

Legal term, meaning literally "by the court", that denotes decisions made by a court acting as a whole, as opposed to statements made by individual judges.

 

[D2bets]

7-2 against Fl/Gore Amazing how time can change facts.

It was NOT 7-2. If a lawyer wrote that they should be fired. On Part C which had the only argument for relief, there were 4 dissenters. It was 5-4.

Oh, and it was awful Constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[D2bets]

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I-A-1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting. The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.

 

[SamOdom]

It was NOT 7-2.

Again your facts are wrong. 7-2 ruled that the FL. SC final decision was unconstitutional. 5-4 ruled there was not enough time under FL Law to remedy Gore's claim.

 

[SamOdom]

If memory serves, if the case had ran its full course and conclusion in Fl it would have ended in Florida's legislature by a vote. Whereas they would have summited their Electoral vote count to the US Senate.

 

[D2bets]

Again your facts are wrong. 7-2 ruled that the FL. SC final decision was unconstitutional. 5-4 ruled there was not enough time under FL Law to remedy Gore's claim.

False. It wasn't Gore's claim, it was Bush's. Bush was the petitioner. Hence, Bush v. Gore.

There were 3 separate dissents, that is why people get confused. But the bottom line "stop the counting" decision was 5 (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kenney, O'Connor) to 4 (Breyer, Souter, Stevens Ginsburg).

 

[TheRightWing]

damn what a frinkin headache Team Gore put the country through in 2000. But I did get to see James Baker press conference which is worth the price of admission!!

 

[SamOdom]

False. It wasn't Gore's claim, it was Bush's. Bush was the petitioner. Hence, Bush v. Gore.

There were 3 separate dissents, that is why people get confused. But the bottom line "stop the counting" decision was 5 (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kenney, O'Connor) to 4 (Breyer, Souter, Stevens Ginsburg).

You are correct about Bush v Gore.

The major point/ruling by the US SC was ruling 7-2 on the unconstitutionality of Fl SC decision. Without that, there would have been no 2nd or 3rd dissents.

 

[D2bets]

You are correct about Bush v Gore.

The major point/ruling by the US SC was ruling 7-2 on the unconstitutionality of Fl SC decision. Without that, there would have been no 2nd or 3rd dissents.

Not quite. 2 Justices, Stevens and Ginsburg, concurred to the extent that they believed that there should be a national standard for voting. But, they argued that that wasn't practical in this case, of course, given the time contraints, and as a result both dissented from the decision to stop the counting. So do you agree with Stevens and Ginsburg that there should be a national standard. Funny thing, most conservatives don't want that, now do they? But of course that was the natural implication of the imprudent decision.

Like I said, if it had all been reversed and Bush had been asking for the recounting and this case went to SCOTUS, it would have been decided rather differently. In other words, the decision was wholly political and result-oriented, not based on legal jurisprudence.

 

[SamOdom]

If memory serves, if the case had ran its full course and conclusion in Fl it would have ended in Florida's legislature by a vote. Whereas they would have summited their Electoral vote count to the US Senate.

November 30, 2000

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- A committee of Florida lawmakers Thursday urged the state Legislature to pick the state's presidential electors in a special session, a move Democrats said was designed to ensure a George W. Bush victory.

A special session could convene as early as Tuesday, sources told CNN, to appoint the state's Electoral College contingent if Vice President Al Gore's challenge to the Florida presidential recount is not settled by December 12 -- the statutory deadline for naming electors. As the committee met Thursday, Gore's campaign told the U.S. Supreme Court that any legislative attempt to appoint electors was on uncertain constitutional ground.

Lawmakers pushed for the unprecedented special session, and a joint legislative committee voted 8-5 Thursday to recommend meeting "as soon as practicable."

A special session is likely yield electors pledged to Bush, who Florida officials have certified as the winner of the state's presidential contest. Both Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Bush, the Texas governor and Republican candidate, need the Sunshine State's 25 electoral votes to win the presidency.

 

[SamOdom]

Not quite. 2 Justices, Stevens and Ginsburg, concurred to the extent that they believed that there should be a national standard for voting.

You keep quoting the dissenters of the losing side.

 

[D2bets]

You keep quoting the dissenters of the losing side.

Exactly, Stevens and Gisburg, along with Breyer and Souter were on the "losing side" of the 5-4 decision. Thanks for proving my point.

Next.

 

[SamOdom]

November 30, 2000

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- A committee of Florida lawmakers Thursday urged the state Legislature to pick the state's presidential electors in a special session, a move Democrats said was designed to ensure a George W. Bush victory.

A special session could convene as early as Tuesday, sources told CNN, to appoint the state's Electoral College contingent if Vice President Al Gore's challenge to the Florida presidential recount is not settled by December 12 -- the statutory deadline for naming electors. As the committee met Thursday, Gore's campaign told the U.S. Supreme Court that any legislative attempt to appoint electors was on uncertain constitutional ground.

Lawmakers pushed for the unprecedented special session, and a joint legislative committee voted 8-5 Thursday to recommend meeting "as soon as practicable."

A special session is likely yield electors pledged to Bush, who Florida officials have certified as the winner of the state's presidential contest. Both Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Bush, the Texas governor and Republican candidate, need the Sunshine State's 25 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Bush v. Gore
531 U.S. 98 (2000)
Docket Number: 00-949
Abstract



Argued:
December 11, 2000

Decided:
December 12, 2000

Conclusion
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice.
<!-- / message -->

Note the timeline: State law required a Dec 12th submission of electors.

 

[SamOdom]

Exactly, Stevens and Gisburg, along with Breyer and Souter were on the "losing side" of the 5-4 decision. Thanks for proving my point.

Next.

I thought you were brighter than you are displaying:sad3: are you trying to win a internet debate in your own mind regardless of the facts?

Explain the 7-2 US SC vote. What did it mean?

 

[D2bets]

I thought you were brighter than you are displaying:sad3: are you trying to win a internet debate in your own mind regardless of the facts?

Explain the 7-2 US SC vote. What did it mean?

The part that was 7-2 was arguing for a national vote counting standard, which 2 of the 7 then said wasn't applicable in this case due to time considerations. I hope that helps because I don't have time to discuss in depth any more a poorly decided 5 year old opinion.

 

[SamOdom]

I don't have time to discuss in depth any more a poorly decided 5 year old opinion.

:howdy:

 

[SamOdom]

Final thoughts: The obvious flaw in D2bets argument is he thinks the voting (recount) process which was ruled unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote should have continued. If the recount procedure is flawed in fact unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote why finish it? Obviously it should not continue.

Is the voting procedure 100% perfect in Fl or the USA, no, hell no.

 

[Coldweather]

Poppycock !

The Republicans won that election in the ballot box. The Democrats cry over spilled milk and took this election out of the ballot box and into the courtroom. They did this by call old people names claiming they were to stupid to know who they voted for and to old to punch a ballot ticket.

Poppycock ! Republicans won that election and the Democrats try to steal it but George W. was to smart for them. Give him the credit he is do!

poo poo pee doo!