Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court 10 Years Later...

[CanadianKid]

Its not up to me to disprove your point, but you to prove yours.

My points already been proven... its "settled law",

So your job is to disprove it...since you can't disprove it, just go bye bye.

Me and Jeffrey Toobin know what we are talking about, you and your little Internet troll buddies can keep on walking...

CK

 

[DamnYankee]

My points already been proven... its "settled law",

Yes, Bush V. Gore is settled law. So what's your point?

 

[NOVA]

Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection clause of the Constitution

7-2

The vote is hardly one sided.....in the majority'

but definitely one sided in the minority...

.

 

[Bonestorm]

.

You do realize that the 7-2 defense of Bush v. Gore is probably the most dishonest defense of the decision that there is, don't you?

 

[NOVA]

You do realize that the 7-2 defense of Bush v. Gore is probably the most dishonest defense of the decision that there is, don't you?

Thats called a BI-PARTISAN decision...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You do realize that the 7-2 defense of Bush v. Gore is probably the most dishonest defense of the decision that there is, don't you?

do explain. i'd love to hear how that is.

 

[Bonestorm]

Thats called a BI-PARTISAN decision...

Actually, given that the decision was 5-4 along liberal/conservative lines, it was certainly not bi-partisan.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually, given that the decision was 5-4 along liberal/conservative lines, it was certainly not bi-partisan.

wait. was it 7-2 or 5-4?

 

[Bonestorm]

wait. was it 7-2 or 5-4?

The final decision was 5-4. Two dissenting justices agreed that the recount violated the equal protection clause but vehemently opposed the majority remedy of ordering a halt to the recount, declaring that no recount process that could pass constitutional muster could be implemented and effectively declaring Bush the winner of Florida. The argument that the decision was 7-2 is premised on the ridiculous notion that remedies do not matter.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The final decision was 5-4. Two dissenting justices agreed that the recount violated the equal protection clause but vehemently opposed the majority remedy of ordering a halt to the recount, declaring that no recount process that could pass constitutional muster could be implemented and effectively declaring Bush the winner of Florida. The argument that the decision was 7-2 is premised on the ridiculous notion that remedies do not matter.

did those two dissenters offer any alternative to a recount or halt?