court stacking begins

The thing most people aren't considering about the present financial meltdown is the political consequences over the long term. I do believe that this was the figurative straw that broke the camels back and that this crises will be transformative politically. I would not be surprised to see the demise of one political party and a major transformation of the other.
 
I'll argue some facts the new regs didn't cause the crisis. It may have made it worse, if mark to market is what they are talking about.
And just cause we creates SOX doesn't mean banks selling this shit did so whithout green lights.
 
Well Democrats have control of both elected branches of government by the will of the people and they didn't even have to steal an election to do it like Republicans did in 2000. Why shouldn't they stack the deck with liberals and moderates and get rid of the right wing reactionary extremist?

After all, we won the elections and not you wing nut extremist. Correct me if I"m wrong but aren't democracies supposed to be representative?

2000 wasn't stolen, other than that I agree with your post. Let Obama appoint whomever he pleases, if it gets through Senate, go for it.
 
That's true. Deregulation of Banking began under the Carter administration.

Holy shit man...are you trying to make desh's head implode....empty globes do that you know.....:clink:...she can't handle facts.....unless they are confirmed on the huffington post or moveon....
 
I hope no USC , It should just be a normal change with Obama appointing who he thinks is good as well as qualified for the position.

Now if he starts filling the DOJ with people from the worst law colleges in the country simply because they are muslim colleges or maybe some other religion then I might get really pissed. Now if he does and those appointees start kicking Christains out of the DOJ because they are the wrong religion or say because their spouses voted republican or some crap then I'll call for his impeachment.

Now how did you righties treat that situation when Bush did it?

Well, what we did was fight like hell for our rights...though faced with strong resistance by Senate Democrats, we made deals and compromised...waiting as long as four years to get some of our choices approved....

Some examples...

Roberts, Estrada, Owens and Pickering....

June 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched party affiliation from Republican to Independent, he allowed Senate Democrats to take control of the chamber and committee chairmanships. The result was Bush's judicial nominees stall.

It took John Roberts 2 years to be confirmed....

Estrada, Owen, Pickering and other nominees were subjected to filibusters.

Estrada finally withdrew in 2004

Pickering got a "recess appointment" and retired after 11 months on the bench...

Owens finally got confirmed in May of 2005....

Yes, Republicans won the election and Dims obstructed 100% of the time...
 
Well Democrats have control of both elected branches of government by the will of the people and they didn't even have to steal an election to do it like Republicans did in 2000. Why shouldn't they stack the deck with liberals and moderates and get rid of the right wing reactionary extremist?

After all, we won the elections and not you wing nut extremist. Correct me if I"m wrong but aren't democracies supposed to be representative?

what is the point of the last paragraph? what country are you talking about?
 
2000 wasn't stolen, other than that I agree with your post. Let Obama appoint whomever he pleases, if it gets through Senate, go for it.

Oh ok, Bush didn't steal the 2000 election. He was undemocratically anointed President by SCOTUS against the will of the majority of Americans who voted against him.
 
You're still wrong, but whatever.

How am I wrong? It was the SCOTUS case Bush vs Gore that put him in the white house. Considering the controversy in Florida you can't say definitively he won the electoral vote and he most certainly lost the popular vote to Gore, so how am I wrong?
 
How am I wrong? It was the SCOTUS case Bush vs Gore that put him in the white house. Considering the controversy in Florida you can't say definitively he won the electoral vote and he most certainly lost the popular vote to Gore, so how am I wrong?

Considering too much time was spent when it mattered, I'll not keep fighting this. However, it got started on the court route how and why? Ok, skip that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Post recount
After Florida was decided and Gore conceded, Texas Governor George W. Bush became the President-elect and began forming his transition committee.[36] In a speech on December 13, in the Texas House of Representatives chamber,[37] Bush claimed he was reaching across party lines to bridge a divided America, saying, "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race, and every background."[38]

On January 6, 2001, a joint session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

Subsequently, the joint session of Congress certified the electoral votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001.

Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[39] to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process.

The first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. The Commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards.[40]

[edit]National results
Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more individual votes than Bush. Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state, Tennessee, which both he and his father had represented in the Senate. Gore was the first major-party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. Incidentally, Bush lost in Connecticut, the state in which he was born. Bush is also the first Republican in American history to win the presidency without winning Vermont or Illinois and the second Republican to win the presidency without winning California. (James A. Garfield in 1880 was the first.)
 
If the florida's illegal list which dumped perfectly LEGAL voters off the roles did not exsist then it NEVER would have been desided by the SCOTUS.

It was stolen plain and simple.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/21/news/mn-620




Harry Sawyer, election supervisor in Key West, was stunned when Florida officials sent him a list of 150 convicted felons to cut from county voter rolls in mid-1999.

Among those named: an election employee, another worker's husband--and Sawyer's own father. None was a felon. "It was just a mess," Sawyer said.

More mess was to come. Indeed, a little-known program aimed at curbing voter fraud in Florida was so badly designed and run that it wrongly targeted thousands of legitimate voters during the 2000 presidential election.

Even worse, state officials in Tallahassee ignored clear warnings about the mounting mistakes and actually loosened criteria for matching voters' names with those of felons, putting more innocent people at risk of losing their right to vote.

The so-called felon purge drew little attention during the bitter 36-day recount battle between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore last fall. But a review by The Times of thousands of pages of records, reports and e-mail messages suggests the botched effort to stop felons from voting could have affected the ultimate outcome.

The reason: Those on the list were disproportionately African American. Blacks made up 66% of those named as felons in Miami-Dade, the state's largest county, for example, and 54% in Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa.
 
Considering too much time was spent when it mattered, I'll not keep fighting this. However, it got started on the court route how and why? Ok, skip that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

You're missing the point. None of that happened till after Bush v Gore. Had not a partisan SCOTUS decided in favor of Bush then Florida was not decided so thus they essentially did hand the election to Bush and no one disputes that Al Gore won the popular vote. You're rationalizing.

By the way, Gores losing the popular vote of Tennessee is a complete non-sequeter. He wasn't running for President of Tennessee. He was running for President of the United States and he won the popular vote of the entire nation.

Mark my word on this. Bush vs. Gore was a landmark decision that will come back to bite us in the ass. The political ill will and divisions it created are manifest. SCOTUS should have stayed the hell out of it and allowed the political process work it self out. Bush would have won anyways with a Republican dominated Florida Legislature. Bush vs. Gore will rank historically with Dred Scott as one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and the bad decision was not favoring Bush in a purely partisan manner, which was bad enough, but that they even took the case in the first place. SCOTUS playing king maker was a horrible, horrible precedent. Far worse than foisting the most inept and ineffective President since Warren G. Harding on the US public it politicized the Judiciary in a manner never intended by the US Constitution or our founders.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. None of that happened till after Bush v Gore. Had not a partisan SCOTUS decided in favor of Bush then Florida was not decided so thus they essentially did hand the election to Bush and no one disputes that Al Gore won the popular vote. You're rationalizing.

By the way, Gores losing the popular vote of Tennessee is a complete non-sequeter. He wasn't running for President of Tennessee. He was running for President of the United States and he won the popular vote of the entire nation.

Mark my word on this. Bush vs. Gore was a landmark decision that will come back to bite us in the ass. The political ill will and divisions it created are manifest. SCOTUS should have stayed the hell out of it and allowed the political process work it self out. Bush would have won anyways with a Republican dominated Florida Legislature. Bush vs. Gore will rank historically with Dred Scott as one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS and the bad decision was not favoring Bush in a purely partisan manner, which was bad enough, but that they even took the case in the first place. SCOTUS playing king maker was a horrible, horrible precedent. Far worse than foisting the most inept and ineffective President since Warren G. Harding on the US public it politicized the Judiciary in a manner never intended by the US Constitution or our founders.
I purposely did not bold the TN vote. It's nine years later, who cares anymore? Speaking of rationalizing, who tried to cherry pick recounts? First to take to court when the counts weren't going his way? Again, been there, done this, there is no longer a point.
 
Sure there's a point. SCOTUS appointed a man President of the United States against the popular will of the American public. They set a horrible precedent for SCOTUS as king maker that could have terrible unforseen consequences and their appointment to the Presidencies had terrible consequences as he turned out to be one of the most inept Presidents in US history. That's the point. The American public got 2000 right. SCOTUS did not.
 
How am I wrong? It was the SCOTUS case Bush vs Gore that put him in the white house. Considering the controversy in Florida you can't say definitively he won the electoral vote and he most certainly lost the popular vote to Gore, so how am I wrong?

The Florida SC became involved and attempted to break their states election laws because Gore tried to steal the election! The SC of the US ruled that they could not break their own laws in order to count votes that were deemed invalid. This controversy has been debunked by independent investigations and still you numbskulls drag it out and beat the dead carcass!

The SCOTUS on Florida 2000
 
I purposely did not bold the TN vote. It's nine years later, who cares anymore? Speaking of rationalizing, who tried to cherry pick recounts? First to take to court when the counts weren't going his way? Again, been there, done this, there is no longer a point.


Bush was the first to rush into court, not Gore. And Gore actually won Florida, just not according to the recount he requested. A full statewide recount would have resulted in a Gore presidency.

And I care. Bush wasn't even elected and went on to fuck this country up and now we have the same people that voted for that fucking moron holding "tea parties" funded by GOP activists after two months of Obama and this "Going Galt" horseshit with the serious looney tunes talking about taking up arms in revolution. Fucking whiners. I would let it go if you and yours would just step off to the sidelines and let the adults run the government for a while. But you can't do that, so here we are.
 
Bush was the first to rush into court, not Gore. And Gore actually won Florida, just not according to the recount he requested. A full statewide recount would have resulted in a Gore presidency.

And I care. Bush wasn't even elected and went on to fuck this country up and now we have the same people that voted for that fucking moron holding "tea parties" funded by GOP activists after two months of Obama and this "Going Galt" horseshit with the serious looney tunes talking about taking up arms in revolution. Fucking whiners. I would let it go if you and yours would just step off to the sidelines and let the adults run the government for a while. But you can't do that, so here we are.

Seems the boneheads still don't grasp what happened in Fla. and make up their own facts as they see fit....

Here it is again....pay attention:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced she would reject any revised totals from those counties if they were not turned in by November 14, the statutory deadline for amended returns.

Despite the lies, Harris was following the freekin' laws of Florida as they existed ...11/14 THE DEADLINE FOR AMENDED RETURNS


The Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline to November 26, a decision later vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Florida Dim packed State Supreme court tried to CHANGE THE EXISTING LAWS to accomodate Al Gore and the Democrats....unconstitutional


Miami-Dade eventually halted its recount and resubmitted its original total to the state canvassing board, while Palm Beach County failed to meet the extended deadline. On November 26, the state canvassing board certified Bush the victor of Florida's electors by 537 votes.

Even with the unconstitutional deadline of 11/26 ... BUSH STILL WON


Gore formally contested the certified results, but a state court decision overruling Gore was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of over 70,000 ballots previously rejected by machine counters. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly halted the order.

a. Gore's attempt to steal the election was stopped by a state court decision

b. Florida Supreme Court again goes to bat for Gore by overturing the State Court...this is second attempt by Fla. SC to give the election to Gore...

c. US Supreme Court finally does their duty and tells FSC to fuck-off with their unconstitutional biased decisions to help Gore


On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's plan for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. It also directed by a 5-4 vote that the Florida recounts cease and that the previously certified total would hold.

And those kiddies... are the facts of the 2000 election and Gors attempt to steal the Presidency with the help of a left-wing court....
 
The Florida SC became involved and attempted to break their states election laws because Gore tried to steal the election! The SC of the US ruled that they could not break their own laws in order to count votes that were deemed invalid. This controversy has been debunked by independent investigations and still you numbskulls drag it out and beat the dead carcass!

The SCOTUS on Florida 2000

Oh that's just utter right wing nonsense. Not only that it wasn't even neccessary. The final say in Florida would have gone to the State legislature and that's what SCOTUS should have allowed to happen. Since Florida's legislature was dominated by Republicans the end result would have been the same with out setting a horrible precedent.
 
Back
Top